Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2003AP265; 2003(2)ALD324; 2003(2)ALT270
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. All these writ petitions are at the instance of the operators of motor vehicles, who seek to challenge the resolutions passed by the respective Regional Transport Authorities, revising the existing compounding fee and enhancing the same in purported exercise of power under Rule 217 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') as bad, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, apart from being contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made theruender. Hence all these writ petitions are taken up together for the purpose of disposal.2. For convenience sake, I would refer the facts in W.P.No. 20903 of 1997 for the purpose of disposal of all the writ petitions.3. 1 st respondent-The Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam, represented by its Secretary, passed resolution dated 13-6-1997, under which, at Item No. 1, it was resolved to revise the existing sum of money to be recovered i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD78; 2003(3)ALT711
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This batch of Writ Petitions are filed praying for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction in the nature of writ declaring the Supplement to Prakasam District Gazette No. 5, dated 12-2-2002 insofar as it seeks to levy a tax of Rs. 30/- on loading and unloading from lorries under Entries 35(b) and 35(c) at Page No. 11 of the said Gazette Notification and the letter dated 30-4-2002bearing Roc. No. 4189/2001/A issued by the 2nd respondent, as being without jurisdiction, ultra vires, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and null and void and consequently direct the respondents not to collect any tax from petitioners in the interest of justice and pass such other suitable orders.2. The writ petitioners in these Writ Petitions are the proprietors or the partners, as the case may be, of the transport operators and in all these Writ Petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(2)ALT8; (2003)ILLJ604AP
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioner-delinquent being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 31.8.1999 in Writ Petition No.14845/1995 has preferred this writ appeal.2. The learned Judge by the order impugned in the writ appeal has upheld the disciplinary action taken by the Management of the Canara Bank, the 1st respondent herein in dismissing the appellant-petitioner from service with effect from 13.7.1994 as a disciplinary measure.3. Before dealing with the contentions raised in this writ appeal, it will be beneficial to have a glimpse of the relevant facts.4. The appellant was working as Cashier at Nidadavole Branch of the Canara Bank in the year 1993. While working as Cashier at that time, the management of the bank issued Charge Memo on 17.11.1993 to the appellant. It reads as follows:'On 24.9.1993, you were working as Cashier at the branch. On that day, one Sri C.L. Perraju S7o Sri Appa Rao, M/s. Sri Lakshmi Watch Co., Nidadavole tendered by an oversight...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : II(2003)ACC409; 2004ACJ979; 2003(1)ALD716
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. The appeal is filed against the award dated 19.8.1998 in M.O.P.No. 103 of 1994 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Visakhapatnam.2. The appellant is owner of a scooter and was arrayed as third respondent in the O.P. The Tribunal passed award in favour of first respondent herein directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 39,200/-with interest at 12% per annum towards compensation to the first respondent for causing injuries in motor vehicle accident. The first respondent filed the O.P. alleging that she was working as Telegraphist and getting salary of Rs. 2,600/- per month. On the fateful day when she was going to home from office on her two-wheeler Luna, third respondent herein came on scooter bearing No. AIV 4861 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her Luna as a result of which she sustained bone fracture on her right leg and crush injury to her right feet besides multiple injuries to her left feet. She was hos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD745
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 16.10.2000 in I.A. No. 718 of 1999 in O.S. No. 311 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The 3rd defendant, who is the petitioner in I.A. No. 718 of 1999 is the revision petitioner. The plaintiffs are the respondents 1 and 2. The defendants 1 and 2, who were set ex pane in the suit are not made parties to this Revision Petition. I shall refer the parties as plaintiffs and 3rd defendant for the sake of convenience.2. The brief facts which are necessary for determination of the issue involved in this revision petition are as follows: The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 311 of 1997 seeking a decree against defendants 1 to 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,77,799/- alleged to be due from the defendants. The defendants 1 and 2 were set ex parte. The defendant No. 3 filed LA. No. 718 of 1999 under Order 14 Rule 2 read with Order 7 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code to r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(6)ALD66; 2003(3)ALT487
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This revision is preferred against the order dated 29.01.2002 in C.M.A. No. 11 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, allowing the appeal and dismissing I.A. No. 501 of 2001 in O.S. No. 34 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, filed under order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. 2. Revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 34 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents and their family members from entering into or interfering with his possession and enjoyment of Ac.2-30 Cents in S. No. 81/1 (old) corresponding to 82/72 (new) within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule (hereinafter called 'the suit property'), alleging that as an ex-serviceman he was assigned an extent of Ac.5.00 in S. Nos. 82 and 68, i.e., Ac.4.00 in S. No. 82 and Ac.1.00 in S. No. 68 of Yeshwanthapur village of Jangaon Revenue Mandal, which includes the suit land, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : II(2003)BC680
Kurian Josephthe NABARD Act defines the NABARD Act defines J.1. Co-operative Societies is a State subject and Banking a Central subject. What about Banking by Co-operative Societies? Does it require licence under the Banking Regulation Act?2. All these Original Petitions relate to the registration and functions of unlicensed Urban Banks. The very expressions 'Unlicensed' and 'Bank' would call for a detailed examination as to what is Banking and whether it requires licence for conducting Banking business. Such examination is all the more necessary since the unlicensed Banking is attempted to be conducted by co-operative societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The scope of the expression 'Co-operative Society' and various types of such societies and 'Banking' as appear in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Act 21 of 1969). Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Act 10 of 1949). Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (Act 2 of 1934), National Bank for Agricultura...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD563; 2003(1)ALT276
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants 1 and 106 arising out of IA No. 926 of 2002 in OS No. 38 of 2002, which is pending on the File of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at NTR Nagar.2. It appears from the record that the respondents 1 and 2, who were plaintiffs in the suit, had filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants-appellants herein and some other respondents herein, which was numbered as OS No. 38 of 2002.3. The parties to the appeal are described as arrayed in the original suit.4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed IA No. 926 of 2002 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC with a prayer to grant temporary injunction against the defendants 1 and 106 restraining them from alienating the plaint schedule property to the extent of Ac.379-10 guntas situated at Bachepally Village.5. The second plaintiff in her affidavit stated that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to her father late Mohd. Naw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(2)ALT58
Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, J.1. The three Writ Appeals are filed by the respondents in W.P.Nos. 7364 and 10308 of 2000 against the common order dated 17.8.2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court allowing those two writ petitions. W.P. No. 20530 of 2002 is filed by five petitioners therein requesting this court to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct survey by the Regional Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, of the land in S. No. 67 of Madhapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District with reference to the land possessed by the petitioners and also the land held by the 3rd respondent. As common questions of law and facts arise in the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition, we are disposing of the writ appeals as well as the writ petition by a common order. 2. The Government is the owner of the land situated in Sy. No. 64 of Madhapur village of Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. In or about the year 1992 th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD54; 2003(2)ALT441
Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, J.1. This appeal is filed by the respondents in W.P. No. 4285 of 1997 questioning the order dated 11.4.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The respondent - writ petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in the Regional Centre, Indira Gandhi National Open University at Hyderabad. By proceedings dated 13.3.1995 he was transferred from the Regional Centre at Hyderabad to the headquarters of the University at New Delhi. On the date of the said transfer order, the respondent was attending a departmental test at New Delhi. By proceedings dated 16.3.1995 the respondent was relieved of his post in the Regional Centre at Hyderabad. The respondent filed W.P. No. 5254 of 1995 questioning the proceedings dated 13.3.1995 transferring him to the headquarters at New Delhi. In the said writ petition he filed WPMP. No. 6487 of 1995 seeking suspension of the proceedings dated 13.3.1995. The Standing Counsel for the University informed the Court t...
Tag this Judgment!