Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Sunder Ispat Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex., Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(79)ECC442; 2002(141)ELT24(AP)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The petitioner in this application has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to comply with the representation of the petitioner for supply of documents as also for production of witnesses for cross-examination in terms of its letter dated 26-12-2000.2. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24-11-2000whereby and whereunder the petitioner was called upon to show cause as under:'From the above it appears that the assessee has failed to produce the documents evidencing various measurements of the furnace and the measurements furnished by him appear to be incorrect as explained above. The technical team has taken the production of ingots physically and has arrived at the capacity of furnaces F1 and F2 as 3.2 MT and 3.0 MT respectively. The entire process of working out the capacity and the other technical details which were obtained by the technical team were accepted by the assess...
Keshav Jadhav Vs. Election Commission of India, Delhi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: AIR2001AP538
E. Dharma Rao, J. 1. Keshav Jadhav, the writ petitioner, who contested as an independent candidate for the State Legislative Assembly from 214-Maharajgunj Constituency, assails the correctness of the order No. 76/AP/LA/97, dated 8-2-1999 issued by the Election Commission of India, disqualifying him to be chosen as and for being a member of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of three years, for his failure to lodge the account of election expenses, as required under the provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for brevity the Act) in this writ petition.2. On receipt of report dated 18-1-1995 and 29-3-1995 from the District Election Officer, under Rule 89(1) of the Election of Conduct Rules, 1961 (for brevity the Rules), that all the contesting candidates from 214 Maharajgunj constituency have lodged their account of election expenses except the petitioner and 9 other candidates, a notice dated 9-1-1996 was i...
Karamsad Investments Limited, Vs. Nile Limited and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: [2002]46CLA23(AP); [2002]108CompCas58(AP); (2002)1CompLJ251(AP)
J. Chelameswar, J.1. These four appeals are preferred against the common order passed by the Company Law Board, Southern Bench, Chennai, in C. P. Nos. 15, 21, 22, 23/111-A/SRB of 1998. The appellants in Appeals Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2001 herein were the petitioners in C. P. Nos. 23,15, 21 and 22 of 1998 respectively before the Company Law Board. M/s. Nile Ltd. is the common respondent in all the appeals herein and before the Company Law Board.2. All the four company petitions were disposed of by the Company Law Board by its common order dated November 1, 2000. The appellant in Appeal No. 3 of 2001, viz., M/s. Gujarat Machinery Manufacturing Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'GMM') is admittedly the holding company of all the three other companies which are appellants in the other three appeals, i.e., Company Appeals Nos. 2, 4 and 5 of 2001.3. The various dates and facts to be mentioned hereafter are culled out from the list of dates furnished by the appellants at the time of...
Duggineni Seshagiri Rao Vs. Kothapalli Venkateswara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALT95
Bilal Nazki, J. 1. A short point is involved in this appeal. The appellant filed a regular suit for recovery of Rs. 1,54,100/- being the principal amount and interest due on it. The basis for the suit was promissory note allegedly executed by the defendant on 7.9.1994 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant in his written statement denied the liability and contended that the plaintiff as well as the marginal witness were strangers to him. He termed the promissory note as 'rank forgery'. The following issues were framed for trial. (1) Whether the suit pronote dated 7.9.1984 for Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant (2) Whether the defendant is an agriculturist entitling to the benefits under Act IV of 1938 (3) To what relief On two different occasions two more written statements were filed and two additional issues were framed on 9.2.1995 : 'Additional issues dated 9.2.1995 : (1) Whether the suit pronote is vitiated by mat...
B. Rajan Ram Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Its S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALT562
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 13.7.1999 made in O.A. No. 3659 of 1995 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner wherein he sought a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 28.11.1994, the date on which the petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant in the Department of Jails of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. 2. To begin with, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Andhra Pradesh RICEFED. The A.P.RICEFED went into liquidation. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 329, Agriculture and Cooperation (Coop.I) Department, dated 22.5.1993 and directed that the employees of the Andhra Pradesh RICEFED as shown in the Annexure appended to the said order may be absorbed in Government departments/organisations relaxing the employment procedures/APPSC. In pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 329...
General Manager (Now Re-designated as Managing Director) and Others Vs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: 2001ACJ1860; 2001(5)ALD404; 2001(5)ALT130a
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The reference to this Bench has been made in peculiar situation although no question of any importance arises for consideration in thisappeal.2. One Rajanna died on 22-2-1983 in a road accident that took place on 19-2-1983. The said accident allegedly took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.4. The vehicle was owned by A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. An application under Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed claiming a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation. The Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal upon consideration of the material on record awarded a sum of Rs. 57,000/-with 6% interest from the date of realisation.3. On appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent herein, a learned single Judge of this Court enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 3,15,600/- and in place of 6%, the learned Judge awarded 12% interest per annum. When this LPA came up before a Division Bench of this Court (N.Y. Hanuman...
Gandevalla Jayaram Reddy Vs. Mokkala Padmavathamma and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD402; 2001(5)ALT130
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Whether the transfer of immovable property by way of Pasupu Kumkuma (gift of immovable property to a daughter at the time of marriage) requires registration in terms of the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act or not is the question involved in this application.2. In Bhubaneswar Naik Santoshrai v. The Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Tekkali, : AIR1980AP139 , a Division Bench of this Court held that having regard to the provisions of Section 3 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act which includes the reasonable expenses of marriage of the daughter and further having regard to the nature of the transaction by way of pasupu kumkuma which is both involuntary as well as for consideration, such transaction would not attract the provisions of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act and thus, it is not compulsorily registerable in terms of Section 123 thereof. Another learned single Judge of this Court in P. Buchi Reddy v. Anantula Sudhakar, : 1999...
V. Ramana Vs. Apsrtc and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD427; 2001(5)ALT180; [2002(92)FLR247]; (2001)IILLJ1708AP
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This matter has been listed before us on the reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court for resolving the following questions of law:1. In case where there has been no criminal prosecution resulting in conviction whether the quantum of amount misappropriated or embezzledby a delinquent official can be taken into consideration in deciding the adequacy or otherwise of the punishment?2. If the amount embezzled or misappropriated is too meager and the punishment given is removal from service, which is the ultimate punishment, can it be termed as shockingly disproportionate?2. Before adverting to the aforesaid questions, the fact of the matter may be noticed.3. The petitioner herein had been working as a Conductor in the organization of the respondents herein. Certain charges were framed against him, which are in the following terms:Charge-I :--For having collected an amount of Rs.35/- instead of Rs.46/- from a batch of 23 passengers at the boarding poin...
Sarvaraya Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Com ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD560; 2001(5)ALT749; [2001]107CompCas342(AP)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a public limited company and has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order of attachment in Notice No. AP/VP/ Recy/2814/2001/240, dated 5-7-2001 issued under Sections 8-B read with 8-G of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the EPF Act') and seeking for a declaration that the order appointing a receiver for the petitioner's business in Notice No. A.P/VP/ Recy/2814/241, dated 5-7-2001 issued under Sections 8-B read with 8-G of the EPF Act as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The factual matrix leading to filing of the present writ petition is set out hereunder. The petitioner-company on account of various factors, which are not germane to the writ petition has run into financial problem whereby the net worth of the petitioner-company has eroded substantially and the petitioner has been declared as a sick industrial company under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 198...
Union of India and Another Vs. P.V. Subba Rao and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD717
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. Respondent No.1 is Deputy Chief Engineer (General) in the Office of the Chief Engineer, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. He joined in Railway Service in Group-C on 11-11-1964. By 1979 he was selected as Assistant Engineer Group-B through a limited departmental examination. Later he came to be promoted to Senior Time Scale (STS) Group-B on 29-6-1987. Next promotion of Officers of STS Group-B is to Indian Railway Service (IRSE), which is a selection post. Respondent No.1 became eligible for the post of IRSE Junior Scale (JS) Group-A by 27-10-1982 after completion of three years in STS Group-A. However, he could not be considered as he fell out of zone of consideration. By 1989 his seniority in Service of STS Group-B moved up and he allegedly came within the zone of consideration. As per the rules and procedure of Railways a Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC) has to consider all the eligible candidates who are within the zone of consideration and recommend for p...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »