Andhra Pradesh Court June 2001 Judgments

Vontimitta Krishnaiah Chetty and anr. Vs. C. Subbarayappa (Died) and

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(1)ALT287

ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 262 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Palamaner, Chittor District as confirmed by the District Judge, Chittor in A.S. No. 99 of 1994 dated 31.03.1999. 2. Both the Courts below concurrently held against the appellants/plaintiffs and dismissed the suit as well as the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants Sri Vidya Saagar vehemently contended that both the Courts below gravely erred in holding that the appellants failed to produce any evidence to show that the deceased respondent obtained decree in O.S. No. 258 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Punganur by playing fraud on the appellants by making an endorsement on the summons that the appellants refused to receive summons and the assertion of the appellants was denied by the respondents while they were in the witness box. 3. The factual matrix of the case are that an extent of 2 cannies 39 guntas and 6 veesams in the estate...

Anand Samrat Company, Rep. by Its Partner, Mr. G. Padma Rao Vs. the Co ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2002]253ITR171(AP); [2001]118TAXMAN480(AP)

ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. The petitioner-assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Andhra Pradesh-II, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein dated 21.2.2000 made under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act (for short `the Act') rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under the said Section for waiver of the interest levied under Section 220(2) filed this writ petition assailing the validity of the same.2. The 1st respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner on two grounds. The 1st ground is that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed an application on 27.11.1987 and that application was rejected by his predecessor by his order dated 25.02.1988 and therefore the second petition filed by the petitioner if it is entertained would tantamount to an application seeking review of the earlier order dated 25.02.1988 and such a course is impermissible. The second reason assigned by the 1st respondent to reject the application is that a ma...

Chairman, Managing Director, National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. a ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(4)ALT432; [2003]113CompCas23(AP)

S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner herein has prayed for issuance of a writ or in the nature of mandamus for the following reliefs :To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, have no application for settlement of disputes arising out of the letter of intent dated May 30, 1980, for the civil works for circulating water system, Part I, Ramagundam Super Thermal Power Project, Karimnagar, executed by the respondent herein and set aside the order passed by the designated authority in Arbitral Application No. 37 of 1997, dated December 15, 2000, and pass such other orders in the interests of justice.2. Pursuant to a tender notification of the petitioner issued on September 5, 1979, for execution of civil works in circulating water system, Part I Ramagundam Super Thermal Power Project, Karimnagar, the tender of the respondent herein w...

M. Adbutha Rao Vs. Govt. of A.P., Irrigation and Cad Dept. and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(4)ALT407

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 5606 of 1997 dated 13-8-1999 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner to set aside G.O.Rt.No. 1405, 1 and CAD (CAD Ser. II) Department dated 22-12-1995 treating the period of suspension of the petitioner from 17-9-1991 to 28-9-1994 as substantive punishment, etc. was rejected.2. The petitioner who was working as Superintending Engineer, Investigation and Administration, I and CAD Department has filed the aforesaid Original Application with the following prayer:(a) to call for the records connected with G.O.Rt.No. 1405,1 and CAD (CAD Ser. II) Department dated 22-12-1995 and quash the same:(b) to declare that the respondents have no authority in law to impose the penalty of recovery of Rs. 7.25 lakhs from the applicant:(c) to direct the respondents to promote the applicant as Chief Engineer with effect from the date on which Sri D. Rami Reddy was prom...

Managing Director, A.P. Cooperative Housing Societies Fed. Ltd. Vs. Ch ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The second opposite party in O.P. No. 758/1994 (C.D. No. 758/1994) on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Khammam is the appellant. The case of the complainant is that he is a member of the first opposite party society which in turn is a member of the second opposite party. The complainant made an application for loan before the first opposite party. The said application was recommended by the first opposite party and finally the second opposite party sanctioned loan of Rs. 12,000/- through first opposite party on 13.1.1971 repayable by the complainant in twenty annual instalments. It is the first opposite party that collects premiums on behalf of the second opposite party. The complainant paid all the instalments commencing from 1974 to 1987 and requested the second opposite party by registered letters dated 23.1.1984 to return the original documents pertaining to the house of the complainant, whereupon the second opposite party asked the first...

Dr. Machineni Rama Rao Vs. D. Padmavathi @ Padma Sree

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The opposite party in C.D. No. 273/98 on the file of the District Consumer Forum-2, Vijayawada is the appellant. The complainant, a married woman with three children was hale and hearty upto middle of 1992. She approached the opposite party/appellant herein with a complaint of pain in the abdomen and weakness. The opposite party operated on her on 20.8.1992 with token No. 3081 for removal of irregular growth of flesh in her stomach. It is the case of the complainant that after surgery she was not able to pass urine normally. Hence, she attributes negligence to the opposite party in conducting the operation as she cannot pass urine without using the catheter. 2. In the counter filed by the opposite party it is stated that the complainant approached him on 18.5.1992 with a complaint of abdominal pain, urine trouble and weakness. He conducted necessary tests and found that she was suffering from growth of mass in her lower abdomen. He prescribed antibio...

Xl Telecom Limited Vs. Collector of Customs, Hyderabad Collectorate, H ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(132)ELT568(AP)

ORDERS.R Nayak, J.1. A short, but an important question of law of general importance that arises for decision in this writ petition is whether a custodian appointed under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') is entitled to claim demurrage charges only in respect of the period during which the imported goods are in actual physical custody of suchcustodian or whether such custodian can also claim demurrage charges from the date of unloading of the imported goods in a custom area.2. To put the case of the petitioner in brief is: The petitioner company is a public limited company, which is engaged in the manufacture of Telecom Cables Jointing Kits. One of the components of the Telecom Cable Jointing Kits is a heat shrink sleeve. The petitioner has a manufacturing unit at IDA, Mallapur, whereas, inter alia, the heat shrink profiles which are imported, are processed and converted into heat shrink sleeves. The petitioner has technical and financial collaboration with RXS ...

Director of Intermediate Education, Govt. of A.P. and Another Vs. N. S ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(5)ALD449; 2001(5)ALT759

ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J.1. All these writ petitions involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts leading to filing of the writ applications are as follows :- Pursuant to or in furtherance of the recommendations of a One-man Committee known as 'V.R. Reddy Committee', Vocational Training Courses were introduced in the State from the year 1979-80 onwards. The Central Government offered 75% of total expenses of salaries. According to theState, the Scheme is purely temporary and all the posts sanctioned for Vocational Courses were under 'Plan' and every year according to the need they were directed to be continued. It is not in dispute that during the year 1994-95, certain posts were converted into 'Non-plan' posts by reason of G.O. Rt, No.214, dated 11-10-1985 and the number of posts sanctioned earlier had been reduced. The writ petitioners herein were appointed in the years 1988 and 1989. On or ab...

Bashapaka Laxmaiah and anr. Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(2)ALD(Cri)225; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)154; 2001CriLJ4066

R.M. Bapat, J.1. The appellants herein are the Accused 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 622 of 1997. They were tried by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, for an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. On evidence, the learned judge convicted them and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.2. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the accused-appellants have filed the present appeal.3. The gravamen of the charge against the accused was that on 25.8.1996 at about 8.00 p.m., they caused the death of the deceased named Bashapaka Soma Mallaiah. The prosecution story can be briefly narrated as follows:The accused, the material prosecution witnesses, and the deceased were residents of Kadavendi village, Devaruppala Mandal, Warangal District. PW-1 happened to be the brother of the deceased. PW-2 happened to be the cousin brother of the deceased. PW-3 is the wife...

R.S. Murthy and anr. Vs. Joint Collector and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(4)ALT337

ORDERSatya Brata Sinha, C.J.1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained for the reason that the revenue authorities in terms of the provisions of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the ROR Act'), were required to pass appropriate reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parities.2. When a person files an application for correction of pass book, he cannot be asked to file a Civil suit because some third party has raised the question of adverse possession therein. It is true that the revenue authorities cannot decide the questions of title and possession, but subject to any decree or order that may be passed in a civil suit, the revenue authorities should exercise their statutory power.3. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge as also the orders of Joint Collector and the Revenue Divis...