Andhra Pradesh Court April 2001 Judgments

Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Cho ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558

ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between...

Agro Tech Foods Limited Vs. Commissioner of Commerical Taxes, A.P., Hy ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(4)ALD120

ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. A short question that arises for our consideration and decision in this writ petition is whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, the 1st respondent herein acted legally and validly in transferring the appeal to be filed/filed by the petitioner from the Territorial Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad, the 4th respondent herein to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein in purported exercise of the power conferred upon the 1 st respondent under Rule 33 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short 'the APGST Rules').2. Although this writ petition waslisted for admission after notice to therespondents, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes, the writ petition was heard finally.3. The background facts leading tothe filing of this writ petition be stated briefly as u...

Sgt. Acharya A.K. Vs. Indian Air Force and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALT532

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 6479 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.2. The petitioner in the aforementioned Writ petition questioned the show-cause notice dated 17th March 2001. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised two contentions before us: (1) Having regard to the opinion formed in paragraph 6 of the impugned notice, it must be held that the authority has already arrived at a finding; (2) In any event, in view of the finding that he is unsuitable for holding the office, Rule 15 of the Air Force Rules, 1969, would apply. In State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, : [1987]2SCR444 the apex Court held that:'When a show-cause notice is issued to a Government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show-cause, ordinarily the Government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showi...

A. Venkatanarayana Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALT130

ORDERR. Ramanujam, J.1.The petitioner herein is the owner of the Van bearing registration No. AP 02 T 9311, which was seized in connection with Crime No. 14 of 2000 of Rapadu Police Station registered under Sections 201, 302 r/w. Section 34 IPC. 2. The petitioner herein is not one of the accused in the said crime. When he approached the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Ananthapur, for release of the said vehicle by filing Crl.M.P.No. 506 of 2001, the learned Magistrate dismissed the same. Thereupon, he filed a revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ananthapur in Crl.R.P.No. 5 of 2001, which was also dismissed on the ground that the investigation in the said Crime is still pending. Hence, he filed the present petition seeking release of the said vehicle. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The petitioner filed the said Crl.M.P., before the learned Magistrate under Section 451 Cr.P.C. It is no doubt true that Section 451 Cr.P.C....

K. Srinivasa Rao Vs. Smt. K. Padmaja

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(5)ALT541

ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J.1. All these three civil miscellaneous appeals can be disposed of by a common order.2. For proper appreciation of the case and in order to avoid confusion, the parties are referred to as the husband and the wife.3. The husband filed O.P. No. 77 of 1998 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage while the wife filed O.P. No. 163 of 1998 for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the O.Ps. were clubbed together for joint trial. Evidence was recorded in O.P. No. 77 of 1998 and the same was treated as evidence in O.P. No. 163 of 1998. By a common order dated 21st February 2000, the learned Family Court Judge, Secunderabad allowed O.P. 77 of 1998 filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage and dismissed O.P. 163 of 1998 filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. However, instead of dissolving the marriage the learned Judge granted judicial separation under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act with a fond hope that the...

Dr. A. Saibaba Goud Vs. Mrs. L. Thomas

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. Aggrieved by the order in O.P. No. 843/1994 (C.D. No. 843/1994) dated 7.9.1998 passed by the District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad the opposite party filed this appeal. 2. The case of the complainant is that she consulted the opposite party on 27.5.1994 for treatment of her eye, who on examination advised her to join Geeta Nursing Home, Secunderabad for intra ocular lens implantation. He conducted the operation on 31.5.1994 and she developed severe pain in the operated right eye, but the opposite party was negligent to examine her and brushed aside her complaint as post operative pain. Not only that she was discharged forcibly on 2.6.1994 from the Nursing Home merely prescribing some pain killers like Combiflam, etc. However, the complainant appeared before the opposite party again on 6.6.1994 with a complaint of unbearable pain. He again disposed of her by merely prescribing some pain killers without bestowing any attention to the real problem which ...

Akula Venkatrao Vs. Gram Panchayat, Attili, W.G. Dist. and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALD555

ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for the issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents 1 to 4, particularly the 1st respondent to auction the lease hold rights of the hotel belonging to the Panchayat Board, Attili, which is towards north of the bus stand, after giving wide publicity.2. It is stated by the petitioner that he is the resident of the first respondent Gram Panchayat village i.e., Attilli in West Godavari district. It is stated that he is one of the participant in the auction conducted by the Gram Panchayat for the lease hold rights of the hotel premises. It is stated that the lease hold rights were auctioned in the year 1997 and the 5th respondent was the successful bidder for a lease amount of Rs.90,100 for a period of 3 years, which is to expire by March, 2000. But, however, due to civil disputes by the previous lessee, the Gram Panchayat could not deliver vacant possession to the successful bidder and fina...

Mahaboob Basha (Dead) by Lrs. Mumtaz and Another Vs. T. Penchalaiah an ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALD705; 2001(3)ALT407

ORDER1. The petitioners assailed the order dated 2-10-2000 in EA No.606 of 2000 in EP No.81 of 2000 passed by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah, contending that if the order is not revised, the same would result in miscarriage of justice. Notice before admission was ordered on 29-12-2000. After receiving the notice, the first respondent appeared through a Counsel. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the first respondent at the stage of admission. Hence, the civil revision petition is being disposed of finally.2. The facts are in a narrow compass. The respondents are decree-holders in OS No.432 of 1998. The decree is for payment of money based on a promissory note, the execution of which appears to have been denied by the defendants. Be it noted that the petitioners herein are the legal representatives - wife and children of Mahaboob Basha, the promissor of the suit promissory note. In EP No.81 of 2000 filed by the responden...

Revathi Trading Corporation Vs. Special Assistant Commercial Tax Ofice ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(4)ALD130

ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. This case highlights how badly the respondent authorities of the Commercial Tax Department treat the citizens. The petitioner's vehicle was seized and detained by the 1st respondent vide the impugned proceedings dated 30-3-2001. It reads:'Proceedings of the Special AssistantCommercial Tax Officer, Check Post, GootyPresent: B.G. Kumar Sub :--APGST Act 1957 - Guntakal Circle - Gooty. Check Post - Detained the Lorry AP2-T-3445 transporting 125 bags of castor seed worth Rs.1,03,950/-at Gooty Check Post relating to M/s. Revathi Trading Corporation, Anantapur - Detention orders passed. Ref :--1. Statement of Sri M. Siva Prasad, Custodian of the goods in Lorry No.AP02-T 3445, dated 30-3-2001 4. Detention notice of the check post dated 30-3-2001 5. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool Ref, B2/164/2000, ...

Ashok Leyland Limited, Ductron, Castings Limited, R.R. District Vs. De ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(4)ALD96; 2002(1)ALT262; [2001(90)FLR703]

ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. In all these writ petitions, the question as to whether the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the ESI Act') is applicable to the units of the petitioners or not, and whether by reason of purchase of establishments/machinery of the loaness from the A.P. State Financial Corporation in the auction held by them under Section 29 of the SFC Act, the petitioners are liable to contribute amount as employers towards their share to the Employees Insurance Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'), under the ESI Act.Section 74 of the ESI Act reads:Constitution of Employees' Insurance Court: (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute an Employees' Insurance Court of such local area as may be specified in the notification. (2) The Court shall consist of such number of Judges as the StateGovernment may think fit. (3) Any person who is or has been a judicial officer or is a legal practitioner of five ye...