Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(1)ALT440; II(2003)BC215
G. Yethirajulu, J. 1. The appellant is the plaintiff in OS No. 374 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif at Warangal. The respondent herein is the defendant in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking to restrain the defendant and his officers and workmen from attaching and ceasing the properties of the plaintiff-bank under A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 ('R.R. Act' for brevity).2. The averments of the plaint are briefly as follows:3. The plaintiff is a nationalized bank. It furnished bank guarantees to various persons guaranteeing payment towards privilege fee, MGQ, and CST charges payable by them to the Excise Superintendent, Warangal. The above bank guarantees were furnished on 30-9-1988 for a period of 12 months and all the rights of the defendant shall be forfeited unless a demand or claim under the guarantee is made against the plaintiff bank within the said validity period of guarantee i.e., on or before 30-9-1989. The defendant has not invoked the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)ALD764; 2002(2)ALT455
Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy and Sri M. V. Rajaram for the petitioners and Sri C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy for the Registrar General of this Court.2. The petitioner in WP No.3433 of 2002 is working as Superintendent in Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. The writ petition was filed by him for mandamus directing the respondents to incorporate/include his category i.e., the category of Superintendents of Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts under Rule 4(2) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules for being eligible for appointment by transfer as Junior Civil Judge and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination scheduled to be held for the post of Junior Civil Judge in terms of the notification dated 29-1-2002 as communicated by the District and Sessions Judge, Karimnager vide proceedings dated 5-2-2002 duly accepting the petitioner's application.3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3761 of 2002 is working as the He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALD735
ORDER1. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No. 2001/D3/ADB/ASC/01-02/1042, dated 15.9.2001 issued by the respondent No.2 as illegal and null and void, without jurisdiction and contrary to the proceedings issued by the respondent No.1 in D.O. Lr. No.503/T2/201, dated 5.9.2001 and also the provisions of the Municipality Act and direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consult with the Bhainsa Municipality to formulate the proposals for additional grants for drinking water works and to pass such suitable orders.2. Though the respective pleadings of the parties are lengthy and elaborate, the short question that is raised by the writ petitioner is the interference of the State Government in the affairs of the Municipality in spending the amounts which had been allotted to the concerned Municipality.3. The facts in brief which will be essential for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are as follows:It is stated that the writ petitioner is the Chair Person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALD211
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge in Review W.P.M.P.No. 8044 of 1995 in W.P.No. 12196 of 1993 dated 31.7.1996. 2. The background facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal be noted briefly as follows: The appellant is a non-tribal andshe purchased the lands in RS.Nos.82/1, 79, 83, 84/3, and 82/2 admeasuring Ac.9.50, 5.70, 2.74, 2.18 and 0.34 cents situated in Itikalakota village of erstwhile Polavaram Taluk, West Godavari District under registered sale deed dated 6.12.1967. The above lands originally belonged to one Sanyasi Nagulu, a Scheduled Tribe and he sold the same by a registered sale deed dated 31.10.1938 in favour of one Kowasu Parvathamma, another tribal. While so, K. Parvathamma and her son Pottaiah, on their turn, sold away the land in favour of Punem Singaiah, another Scheduled Tribe under a registered sale deed dated 8.8.1963. The said Singaiah obtained permission from the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 2285, dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2002AP332; 2002(5)ALT829
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by one P. Ravindra Babu, who at the relevant time was a licenced Surveyor to approve the building plans to be submitted by the persons who intend to construct building or buildings, to the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (for short 'the VMC').2. By order dated 20-11-2000 (hereinafter called 'the 1st impugned order'), the Commissioner of the VMC cancelled the licence of the petitioner on certain allegations. The petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P. No. 24860 of 2000. This Court suspended the operation of the said order. Subsequently, the Commissioner of the VMC, passed an order dated 1-12-2000 (hereinafter called 'the 2nd impugned order'), cancelling the registration of the petitioner bearing No. 135/99-2000. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 66 of 2001. Both the impugned orders are termed as notices. The only difference being that the 1st impugned order merely cancels the licence issued to the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2004]55SCL509(AP)
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. 1st respondent filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act) against the petitioner and another in connection with the bouncing of a cheque for Rs. 25,00,000/- issued on behalf of Bhagyanagar Castings Limited (the Company) which was registered as C.C. No. 294 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Petitioner herein, who is A2 in the above C.C. filed a petition to discharge him, which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate and was confirmed in revision by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge. This petition is filed questioning the dismissal ofthe revision. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner is neither a director nor a person-in-charge of the Company and is in no way connected with the affairs of the Company and had neither opened nor is operating the Bank account of the Company and had not issued the cheque...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)ALT(Cri)1; 2002CriLJ3309
ORDERT. Gopala Krishna, J.1. The petitioner was tried for the offences punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii), 7(i) and 2(ia), 9(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. the trial Court being satisfied with the evidence let in by the prosecution has held that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged and accordingly sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default to suffer S.I. for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner accused filed an appeal in Crl. A. No. 15 of 1999. the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. Hence, present revision case has been filed.2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 23-8-1986 the Food Inspector visited the business premises of the petitioner and found 45 Kgs. of groundnut oil and three open tins for sale. On suspicion, the Food Inspector collected samples following the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(6)ALT284
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The Gram Panchayat, Kondamadugu, the third respondent herein, conducted an auction to lease the right to collect market fee (Rahadari fee) on the cattle brought to the cattle market of the Gram Panchayat. At Rs. 3,85,500/- per annum, the petitioner became the successful bidder and deposited Rs. 96,325/-being 1/4th of the bid amount. However, according to the petitioner, for a period of more than six months, he could not collect any market fee in the cattle market due to an agitation launched against mechanised slaughter house of Al Kabir. He, however, collected market fee for other months and paid the monthly instalment of Rs. 32,125/-.According to him, including the deposit, he paid an amount of Rs. 2,36,000/-.2. The petitioner approached the Government on 11-1-1995 requesting to grant remission under the relevant rules. It is alleged that the second respondent visited the village and submitted a favourable report. In spite of that, the Government, the first resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)ALT(Cri)186; II(2003)DMC268
ORDER1. The petitioners herein were tried as A-1 and A-2 in S.C. No. 98 of 1996 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli, for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. After examining the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11 and Exs.P-1 to P-9, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge held the petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. and accordingly sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, confirmed the same.2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased by name Gondeti Rajaiah along with his wife Rajamma (P.W.2) and father-in-law of the deceased by name Ramaiah (P.W.4) went to Rajampet village to attend the marriage of the daughter of one Neeli Kommuramma. The said marriage took place on 12-5-1995 at the house of Neeli Komuramma in Rajampet village. On the date of ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)ALD741
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 8.6.1999 in WP No. 6300 of 1999 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner.2. In the writ petition, the appellant-petitioner sought for the following relief:'Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to return to the petitioner's family the land of 2 acres 15582 sq. ft. in T.S. No. 83/1 of Waltair Ward of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in implementation of the orders of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 156 M.A. dated 25.2.1982 as reaffirmed in G.O.Ms. No. 121 M.A. dated 27.2.1990 by taking ail steps necessary for that purpose including the publication of withdrawal notification in the official Gazette in terms of Rule 5 of the Land Ac...
Tag this Judgment!