Andhra Pradesh Court December 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Pulipati Engineers (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Principal Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD270; 2002(5)ALT197
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. All these writ petitions are filed to declare G.O. Ms. No.301, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Progms-II) Department, dated 13-7-1998 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered by the petitioners for executing the works in Panchayat Raj Department and to set aside the same and consequently declared the Circular Memo HOT1/1924/1998, dated 4-8-1998 of the 2nd respondent and the latest memo of even number, dated 13-4-1999 as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to refund the amount if any recovered from the petitioners in pursuance of G.O. Ms. No.301, dated 13-7-1998.2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are special class contractors registered with the Government of A.P. carrying on works in various departments and they have entered into agreements for carrying the various works under comprehensive protected water supply scheme at variousplaces in the State in the Panchayat Raj and Rural Wate...
Nandyal Municipal Council, Nandyal Vs. N.M.D. Ismail
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD281
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. A short but interesting question arises in this revision petition filed by the Nandyal Municipal Council against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Nandyal, dated 3-3-1993 rejecting the plaint presented by the petitioner as barred by limitation.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in an un-numbered suit on the file of the Principal District Munsif Nandyal. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. l l,215.80p, being the damages for use and occupation of Nandyal vegetable market and weekly market including the salary of sweeper for the period from 1-4-1988 to 31-3-1989. It was alleged in the plaint that in furtherance and in accordance with the provisions of Sections 271 and 277 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 ('the Act' for brevity) and an order of the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 686, Municipal Administration Department, dated 30-7-1968, the plaintiff issued a notification in Kurnool District Gazette dated 21-3-1988 proposing to conduc...
General Manager Telecom District, Wg, Eluru and ors. Vs. N. Lalithamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD533; 2002(1)ALT119; [2002(94)FLR20]
A.R. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Sri C.V.Ramulu, the learned senior Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. T.V.V.S.Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. The General Manager, Telecom District, West Godavari, Eluru and two others are the petitioners in this Writ Petition. Being aggrieved against the order dated 6-11-2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A.No.743 of 2000, the present Writ Petition has been filed to quash the said order.3. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the respondent herein while working as Chief Telephone Supervisor at Trunk Exchange, Tadepalligudem was relieved on 28-4-1990 to work on deputation basis at Vijayawada for a period of two years on her specific request on domestic grounds. She, however, continued to work on deputation at Vjayawada even after 28-4-1992 unauthorisedly. When she was asked to report back to Tadepalligudem on se...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Vijayalakshmi Enterprises and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD619; 2002(1)ALT106
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Unionof India represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway and two others are the petitioners in this writ petition. The writ petition has been filed for a mandamus restraining the 2nd respondent herein, who was appointed as an Arbitrator in Arbitration Application No.22 of 2001 by order dated 28-8-2001, from functioning as an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes by way of arbitration proceedings in respect of Contract Agreement acceptance letter Nos.B/W.496/I/4 Zone S -3 (A)/1997-98/TI, dated 3-7-1997 and B/W 496/1/4 Zone S-3 (B)/1997-98/Tl, dated. 30-7-1997 as his appointment is illegal, contrary to law and void as per Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. We have perused the order passed by J. Chelameswar, J., in AA No.22 of 2001. This order was passed after hearing the Counsel for the Contractor and thelearned Counsel for Railways. Since there was an arbitration agreement between the pari...
General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and ors. Vs. Kota ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD594; 2002(1)ALT401
A.R. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the General Manager, South Central Railway and 3 others for a mandamus restraining the 2nd respondent herein, who was appointed as Arbitrator in Arbitration Application No.55 of 2001 by order dated 1-10-2001, from functioning as an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes by way of arbitration proceedings in respect of Contract Agreement No.10/ DEN/C/BG/SC/92-93 dated 3-8-1992 as his appointment is illegal, contrary to law and void as per Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. We have perused the order passed by J. Chelameswar, J., in AA No.55 of 2001. This order was passed after hearing the Counsel for the Contractor and the learned Counsel for Railways. Since there was an arbitration agreement between the parties, which was also not in dispute, the learned Judge after hearing the Counsel appearing on either side referred the matter to be resolved by the process of arbitr...
Smt. Neeta Bhalla Vs. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD(Cri)225; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)127; [2002]111CompCas793(AP)
Sudershan Reddy, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 121 of 1998 on the file of the learned 10th Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A-4.2. Before adverting to the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief in this application, it may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts leading to the filing of this application.3. The petitioner herein is a director of the company known as M/s. Direct Finance and Investment Ltd., New Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner that she submitted her resignation from the directorship on April 15, 1994, sending a copy of the letter to the company and also to the Registrar of Companies, New Delhi. She was never associated with the company thereafter at any point of time. It is not necessary to further dwell on this aspect of the matter, since the court does not propose to express any opinion on ...
Cauvery Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prakun Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD(Cri)220; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)155
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. The petitioner herein, who is A-4 in CC.No.21 of 1999 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, filed this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the said CC.2. The 1st respondent herein, a private limited company, filed the complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') against four accused persons. A-1 is also a Company. A-2 is the Managing Director and A-3 is the Joint Managing Director of A-1 Company. A-4 is a different company.3. It is stated in the complaint that A-1 Company has borrowed money under Bill Discounting Facility for a sum of Rs.10 lacs from the complainant; and A-1 has requested the complainant for discounting bills of A-4 Company for a period of 90 days, which have fallen due for payment; and A-1 Company has executed a promissory note; and the complainant paid the amount at the request of A-1 Company to A-4 Company.4. A-1 Company issued cheques t...
Secretary Ministry of Personnel, Pension and ors. Vs. R. Malakondaiah ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)ALT550
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. A short but important question that arises for consideration in these two writ petitions is, whether an employee who retires on the date when the increment becomes due is entitled for payment of the same. 2. The 1st respondent in WP. Nos. 1219 and 1409 of 1998 were working as Audit Officer and Supervisor respectively in the office of the 3rd petitioner. Their dates of births were 1-7-1938 and 23-6-1937 and as such they stood retired with effect from 1-7-1996 and 1-7-1995 respectively. They were denied the annual increment of the year preceding their date of retirement on the ground that they stood retired from service by the time it became due. Therefore, they filed O.A. Nos. 518/97 and 862/97 respectively before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad bench (for short 'the Tribunal'). Following its order in O.A. NO. 401/92 dated 2-12-1992, the Tribunal allowed the two O.As., viz., OA. NO. 518/97 and 862/97 through its orders dated 1-5-1997 and 16-7-1997...
Kamal theatre Vs. Kasireddy Varlakshmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC492; 2003ACJ1226
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 179 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, is the appellant. However, since the relief was not granted in toto as prayed for, the respondent-plaintiff also filed cross-objections and hence both the matters are being disposed of by this judgment.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the original suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards compensation by way of damages from the defendant for the death of the plaintiff's minor son due to the stampede at Kamal Theatre, the defendant, while standing in the queue for purchase of Rs. 2 ticket on 28.5.1982. The suit was instituted as an indigent person. The main ground is that the plaintiff had lost her son only due to negligence or default on the part of the defendant in maintaining the queue properly at the aforesaid theatre. The allegations in the plaint are as follows:T...
Kamalakar Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD720; 2002(1)ALT124
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. Heard Shri Vedula Srinivas, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in this case. This writ petition is filed by way of Public Interest Litigation.2. The petitioner by this writ petition challenging G.O. Ms. No. 540, Industries and Commerce (IP) Department, dated 30-10-2001 whereby the Government of Andhra Pradesh has extended benefit of Sales Tax Deferment in favour of the 3rd respondent, India Cements Limited, upto an amount of Rs. 200-00 Crores which is Interest free, on the ground that the same is arbitrary, unreasonable, ultra vires the powers of the Government, and also opposed to the welfare of the public exchequer.3. The petitioner states that he is a public spirited person and has no personal interest in the subject-matter of the writ petition and, therefore, this writ petition is being filed only to bring to the notice of this Court about the illegal concession of more than Rs. 200-00 Crores granted by the State of Andhra Pradesh in favou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »