Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : I(2003)ACC167; 2004ACJ453; 2002(4)ALD156; 2002(6)ALT561
ORDERG. Rohini, J. 1. The claimants in O.P.No. 658 of 1989 filed this appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-District Judge, Nalgonda by Award, dated 19.10.1990 in O.P.No. 658 of 1989.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellants herein filed O.P.No. 658 of 1989 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of one Kancherla Sreenivasa Reddy in a motor accident. Appellants No. 1 is the wife and appellants 2 to 5 are the minor children of the deceased K. Sreenivasa Reddy. According to the claimants, the deceased K. Sreenivasa Reddy was hale and healthy and was working as Headmaster in the Upper Primary School at Thanderapally Village, Nalgonda District. On 5.2.1989, at about 4.30 p.m., while the deceased K. Sreenivasa Reddy was going on a scooter bearing No. AAL 5092 along with another person by name Narayana Reddy and while they reached PWD Road...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(6)ALT40
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.This writ petition is filed for a writ or order or direction more in the nature of a Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent discharging the petitioner from the training vide proceedings - Force Order No. 23/2000 (X/P.564/Inl/Trg/dt No. 31st) dated 22-2-2000 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Constable with all benefits forthwith and to pass such other suitable orders.2. The facts in brief are as follows:The writ petitioner was the student of Sri Chennabasaveswara Composite Junior College, Aralikatti from 19-6-1995 to 10-4-1997 and he left the college and was working as a clerk from 5-1-1998 to 25-6-1999 in M/s. Mailarling Industries at Adargunchi. It is further stated that the writ petitioner had applied for the post of Constable pursuant to the Employment Notification No. 1 of 1998 and was selected by the duly constituted Sele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALT621
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed by the defendant who suffered an ex parte decree assailing the order of the Court below refusing to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree.2. The facts which are necessary for determination of the question involved in this Revision Petition, are as follows:The respondent herein, filed O.S. No. 3636 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, against the revision petitioner seeking a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 45,270/- with interest at 18% p.a. The Revision Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, filed written statement on 13-4-1995. After settlement of issues the suit was taken up for trial and on 11-3-1997 the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. The suit was adjourned to 21-3-1997 for the evidence of the defendant, since the defendant and her counsel were called absent, the evidence of the defendant was closed and the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD(Cri)592; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)558; 2002CriLJ2891
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in S.N.A. No. 101/2001 of the file of the Court of the judicial Additional District Munsif. Vizianagaram, registered on a complaint given by the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular). Addanki, alleging that on 24-6-2000 he inspected two retail shop the petitioner on 16-2-2000, and had down sample of seven varieties of paddy after following the procedure prescribed under the Seeds Act, 1966 (the Act) and sent the samples for analysis and had on 16-8-2000 received reports dated 10-8-2000 showing that the samples is not confirm to the standards prescribed and so he sought sanction from Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad, to prosecute the petitioners, and filed the charge-sheet on 4-4-2001 after receiving sanction from Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad. 2. The contention of Mr. E. Manohar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, is that since the punishment prescribed Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALD357
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent namely, District Collector, Medak District, in issuing Proceedings No. A4/6668 of 2001, dated 27-12-2001 appointing the third respondent as Panchayat Secretary to the fourth respondent Grain Panchayat, as arbitrary and illegal. He also sought a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to continue the present Executive Officer to the fourth respondent Gram Panchayat.2. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of the fourth respondent Gram Panchayat. It is a notified Gram Panchayat, by reason of a notification dated 30-1-1999 issued by the District Collector. As it is a notified Gram Panchayat it should have an Executive Officer under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act') and, therefore, an Executive Officer was posted for the said Gram Panchayat. After issue of G.O.Ms.No. 369, Panchayat Raj and Rural Developmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALT(Cri)492
ORDER1. This petition is filed to quash the FIR in Cr.No.278 of 2001 registered by I Town Police Station, Karimnagar, under Sec.5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act').2. One Gampa Suvarna submitted a complaint before the District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar on 10.11.2001, alleging that the petitioner, who is the Managing Director of Sneha Financial Services, a finance institution, approached her and requested her to make investment in the said institution promising to repay double the amount deposited as a fixed deposit within 42 months, and took Rs.70,000/- (Seventy thousand rupees) from her and issued a Fixed Deposit Receipt, promising to pay Rs.1,40,000/- on 03.10.1999, and that in spite of repeated requests he failed to repay the amount after the due date and thus had committed an offence punishable under Sec.5 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge forwarded the complaint to Police for investigation and the police regist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002AIHC2449; 2002(4)ALT388
ORDER1. These three writ petitions relate to same land admeasuring Ac.24.59 Cents in Survey Nos.145/2 B, 293/2, 293/4, 293/5, 293/6 and 293/8 of Kallur village and Mandal, hence, all these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order.The facts in brief in the respective writ petitions are as narrated hereunder.W.P.No. 25292 OF 19952. The writ petition is filed for a writ order or direction in nature of certiorari calling for the records of impugned proceedings of first respondent in Lr No.M4/28582/90 dated 6-6-1995 and quash the same as illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to law and further direct the respondents to allot entire land of Ac.24.59 cents in Survey nos.145/2B, 293/2, 293/4, 293/5 , 293/6 and 293/8 of Kallur village and Mandal to the petitioner association as per the market value agreed earlier and pass such further suitable orders.3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner association was registered in the year 1978 with the aim of provi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALD377; 2002(6)ALT275
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This revision petition filed under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 is directed against the judgment dated 18-8-2000 in RA No. 236 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the order of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad dated 23-6-1998 in IA No. 457 of 1997 in RC No. 224 of 1997.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The 1st respondent herein filed RC No. 224 of 1997 against the 2nd respondent herein seeking eviction from the petition schedule premises. Pending the said case, the revision petitioner who is a third party to the proceedings filed IA No. 457 of 1997 under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC to implead him as Respondent No. 2 to RC No. 224 of 1997. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, he stated that he is the tenant in respect of the petition schedule premises paying rents to the landlord, but the landlord filed eviction petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (2003)181CTR(AP)94; [2002]258ITR361(AP)
Dr. Motilal B. Naik, J.1. These two R. Cs. have come up before us on a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee, framing the following question of law for the opinion of this court, viz.,'Whether the assessment is vitiated by non-service of notice on all the legal representatives of the deceased ?'2. Since a common question of law involved in these two R.Cs., we decide the same by the following common order.3. Before we proceed to answer these references, a few relevant facts leading to the references, are traced hereunder :4. The late Gopal Rao who is the wealth-tax assessee died on November 9, 1973, leaving behind his widow, Rajeswari Bai, two sons, viz., Srinivasa Rao and Ramakrishna Rao and two married daughters, viz., Timmabai and Sarada and mother, Timmabai. He also executed a will on November 2, 1973, giving his property to his widow and his four grandsons through the sons, namely, Gopala Krishna Rao, Gopala Rao, Murali Krishna and Moh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD(Cri)930; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)453; I(2003)BC284
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. On a report given on behalf of the first respondent to the inspector of Police. Ramachandrapuram, Medak District alleging that in pursuance of an agreement between the first respondent and Sri Engineering Works, represented by its Proprietor Smt. T. Aparna, (i.e., petitioner herein) first respondent financed the petitioner to purchase machinery and equipment worth about Rs. 5 lakhs, and that as per the terms of the said agreement first respndent, as owner, is entitled to repossess the machinery purchased under the agreement, and the petition erremoved the said machinery from its premises and so necessary action may be taken. The said report was registered as a case in Cr. No. 255 of 1999 under Sections 406 and 409, IPC, and investigation was taken up. At that stage, petitioner filed Crl. P. No. 944 of 2000 in this Court to quash the FIR on the ground that the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence by her. This Court by its order dated 22.06.2000 dism...
Tag this Judgment!