Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
P.V. Radhakrishna Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD660
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has assailed the validity and legality of the proceedings dated 18-1-1996 issued by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam modifying the earlier order imposing the penalty of dismissal from service as a disciplinary measure in pursuance of the directions issued by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No.13005 of 1992 dated 20-12-1995.2. A few relevant facts led to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly: the petitioner was originally appointed as a process server in the establishment of the Visakhapatnam District unit judiciary. Subsequently his services were converted into one of attender. While he was working as such in the office of the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, the learned Additional District Judge appears to have entrusted a sum of Rs.1,000/- on 30-8-1999 to the petitioner directing him to pay the same towards Life Tax in respect of amotorcycle belonging to the son-in-law ot...
K. Venugopal and Others Vs. Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hy ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD668
ORDERS.B. Sinha, CJ 1. The petitioners herein had questioned the order of reversion before the learned Tribunal from the post of Farm Foreman to the post of Operative. They are the employees of Sericulture Department. The orders of promotion in their favour were conditional ones that they should pass the departmental tests. They have passed the departmental test, Part I during the years 1992-1994. They allegedly appeared for Part III practical examination in the month of May, 1999 and the resultsthereof had been published in the monthof January, 2000.2. The conditions relating to such promotion is governed by A.P. Sericulture Subordinate Service Rules. Class (A) of the said Service consists of the following categories:(1) Inspector of Sericulture (2) Assistant Inspector of Sericulture (3) Farm Foreman, Grade I (4) Farm Foreman, Grade II (5) Sericulture Demonstrator (6) Operative 3. The post of Farm Foreman, Grade II can be filled up in terms of G.O. Ms. No.13, dated 28-1-1991 by t...
Union of India and Others Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderab ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALD15; 2001(4)ALT264
ORDERS.B. Sinha, CJ 1. A short andinteresting question arises for consideration in this application.2. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein who were applicants in OA No.170 of 1995 are graduates. An advertisement bearing No,391 of 1988 was published in the Employment News dated 23-7-1988 for appointment to the post of data entry operator; wherefor the desired qualifications were: (1) matriculation; (2) training in data entry operation; (3) Data entry speed of not less than 8000 key depressions per hour (free of error).3. The said advertisement was issued purported to be in terms of a proposal of Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 22-7-1988. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein were appointed in the same post. The amendment to the Income Tax Department (Attached and Subordinate Offices) Data Entry Operators Recruitment Rules, 1988 came into force from 13-8-1988 whereby and whereunder the qualification for holding the said post was brought down from graduation to matriculation.4. The selection ...
A.P. Transco and Others Vs. P. Vijaya Kumar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALD133; 2001(4)ALT67
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Interpretation of Regulation 57(6) of the A.P. State Electricity Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations is in question in this appeal filed by the appellants herein questioning the judgment dated 29-8-2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11616 of 1999. The respondent herein filed the said writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the appellants-respondents therein to treat the period during which he was placed under suspension from 16-12-1992 to 1-3-1999 as on leave and for a further direction to treat the said period as on duty and pay his full salary for the same. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.2. A criminal case was initiated against the respondent for alleged commission of an offence under Sections 148, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. The said criminal proceeding - numbered as Sessions Case 211 of 1998 - was tried by the...
Duggireddy Ramakrishna Reddy and ors. Vs. A.P. State Co-op. Societies, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALT270
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. None appears on behalf of respondents 1 to 6 inspite of service of notices. Heard Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, appearing on behalf of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at request of the Court.2. It is conceded at the Bar that the subject matter that arises for consideration in the instant Civil Revision Petition is squarely covered by an order passed by this Court in CRP. 4749/2000 dated 14-2-2001, : 2001(2)ALD605 in which it is held that 'the amendments to the A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 as amended under Act 29 of 1997 are prospective in nature and the amended provisions have no application to the suits already instituted and pending on the file of the competent Courts of Jurisdiction'. It is further held that 'the law as on the date of filing of the suit would govern until the disposal of the suit'.3. Following the said decision, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. O.S. No. 20/96 on the file of the learned ...
P. Anjaneyulu Vs. Chief Manager, A.P. Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD313
ORDERS.B. Sinha, CJ1. This writ petition arises out of a common order dated 1-3-2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA Nos.283 and 284 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Original Applications filed by the petitioner herein and one V. V. Ramana Reddy, Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Tribunal the applicant in OA No. 284 of 2001 has preferred this writ petition.2. The petitioner herein, in the said original application, inter alia questioned an order dated 12-2-2001 passed by the respondents transferring him from Karimnagar to Cuddapah. The said order of transfer reads thus:'No. TA/STB/l-5/93/KAA/IV dated 12-2-2001Sub :--Transfers and postings in the cadre of TOA (a)/SS(O) under Rule 37 of P&T; Manual Volume IV-Reg.The Chief General Manager, BSNL, A.P. Telecom Circle Hyderabad has ordered the following transfers and posting under Rule 37 of P&T; Manual Volume IV with immediate effect:1. Sri V.V. Ramana Reddy, SS (O), Karimnag...
Harijana Fishermen Mutually Aided Co-op. Society Ltd., Kakani Vs. Dist ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD448
ORDER1. The Harijana Fishermen Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Ltd., Kakani seeks a declaration that the order of the first respondent bearing Roc No.5305/ 96-G2 dated: 19-10-2000 is illegal and for a consequential direction to the said respondent to decide the extent of ayacut of Kakani irrigation tank strictly in accordance with the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 17-11-1999 in WP No.4631 and 14920 of 1999.2. The acrimonious contest between the petitioner and the seventh respondent/ Fishermen Co-operative Society, Kakani is in respect of fishing rights in the irrigation tank Kakani. The controversy in the writ petition is whether the tank is a major or a minor irrigation tank. It is the admitted position of the applicable principle, by all parties concerned that if the tank in question is a major irrigation tank, then the power to auction the fishing rights would vest in the Fisheries Department of the State and if the tank were to be a minor irrigation tank such ...
G. Sanjeeva Reddy (Died by Lrs. 2 to 5) Vs. Indukuru Lakshmamma and Ot ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD522; 2001(4)ALT490
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri dated 6-8-1999 passed in OS No.341 of 1987 under which, during the course of trial, the learned Junior Civil Judge rejected the objection to admission of a compromise deed entered into between the parties in a previous suit in OS No.82 of 1965 dated 6-1-1968 on the ground that it is inadmissible in view of Section 17 of the Registration Act on the ground that the compromise decree comprises the property, which is not the subject-matter of the suit.3. The objection with regard to admissibility of this compromise decree in OS No.82 of 1965 was that suit was for specific performance of agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. The vendor is said to have already sold that property in favour of defendant No.2 in that suit. Under the comprise decree, it was provided that the purchaser from the vendor, defendant No.2 therein, shall be entitled to enjoy the pr...
Nayudu Venkataranga Rao and Another Vs. Ramadasu Satyavathi and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALD352; 2001(4)ALT492
1. This appeal is filed by defendants 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree dated 20-12-1985 made in OS No.100 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District.2. The 1st respondent herein is the sole plaintiff, and respondents 2 to 6 herein are defendants 3 to 7 in the suit. During the pendency of the appeal, the 5th respondent died, and here LRs. are brought on record as respondents 7 to 11.3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants to declare that the plaintiff is the adopted daughter of late Nayudu Ranganayaki, and that they belong to Devadasi Community or Dancing Girls Community and governed by the Caste Custom and usage with reference to theLaw of Succession, and that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest in 'A' and 'B' scheduled properties, which Ranganayaki died possessed of, and to declare that the family settlement deed dated 18-10-1979 is not binding on the plaintiff and was brought into existence by playing frau...
P. Vasu Babu Vs. Cegat, Chennai
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(142)ELT316(AP)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J. 1. All these writ petitions are directed against the common order made by the CEGAT, dated 23-5-2000 made in Appeal Nos. C/285/98, C/284/98, C/1183/98, C/280/98, C/281/98 andC/283/98. 2. The main contention raised in these writ petitions is that the Respondent Excise authorities without properly classifying the subject goods have assumed the jurisdiction and levied the duty and therefore the impugned orders suffer from flaw of 'urisdiction. There is no controversy between the parties that against the impugned orders of the CEGAT, the legal remedies are provided under the Central Excise Act, 1944 itself. Section 35L reads: '(a) any judgment of the High Court delivered on a reference made (under Section 35G or Section 35H) in any case which, on its own motion or on an oral application made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after the passing of the judgment the High Court certifies to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court or (b) any order passe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »