Andhra Pradesh Court December 2003 Judgments
Andhra Printers Ltd. Vs. Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-1 and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALT606; (2004)IILLJ1140AP
K.C. Bhanu, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated June 27, 2003, made in W.P. No. 12305 of 2003 by a learned single Judge of this Court confirming the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, impleading the appellant herein as one of the respondents in Industrial Dispute No. 39 of 2001.2. The learned Judge noticed the relevant facts succinctly and found that mere impleadment of the appellant herein as a party respondent in the Industrial Dispute in no way alters the scope of the reference. The learned Judge also prima facie found that there is a close relationship between the two organizations i.e., the appellant and the third respondent herein and, as such, the order of the Tribunal directing the impleadment of appellant herein does not suffer from any error requiring the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. It is the specific case of the union that the third respondent is nothing,...
Tag this Judgment!Gummadisetti, S/O. Pitchaiah Vs. the Joint Collector
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD535; 2004(1)ALT565
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.16. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P No. 23710 of 2003 is the appellant in this appeal preferred against the order made in the said writ petition wherein a learned single Judge of this Court upheld the order passed by the Joint Collector, Khammam, the respondent herein dated 1.11.2003 keeping the licence of the appellant herein under suspension pending enquiry.17. The appellant is a wholesale kerosene dealer of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL). That when a tanker bearing No. AP 31T 5549 was transporting 12 Kilo Litres (KLs) for public distribution system blue dyed kerosene oil belonging to the appellant herein drawn from Kondapalli terminal of the HPCL, the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer intercepted the tanker. The lorry and the kerosene were seized and the matter was reported to the Joint Collector, Khammam. We do not propose to refer to the allegations in detail levelled against the appellant herein and his defence so as to avoid ...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. JaIn Vs. Zahid Ali and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD(Cri)201; IV(2004)BC367; [2004]122CompCas813(AP)
V. Eswaraiah, J. 1. The Complainant is the appellant and the first respondent is the accused. The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C.No.237 of 1997 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the accused for the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed by the Judgment dated 5-12-1997, holding that the complainant failed to prove the guilt of the accused and the cheque Ex.P1 issued is not to discharge the legally enforceable debt or liability and accordingly, the accused was found not guilty of the said offence. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the complainant filed this appeal. The parties herein are referred to, as they are arrayed in the Court below. 2.The complainant filed the complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short Act), stating that the accused is having acquaintance with him since long time and in the month of December, 1996, the accused took hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from him by executing Ex.P2 p...
Tag this Judgment!Palapala Seetharamaswamy Vs. Palapala Sujya Kumar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALT308
ORDER1. The unsuccessful defendants in both the Courts below are the appellants. The only substantial question of law which had been put forward in the present Second Appeal by the learned Counsel representing the appellants is as hereunder:'Whether the will dated 22-2-1953, Ex-A2, executed before the birth of the respondents is valid ?'2. Both the Counsel had advanced elaborate arguments on this aspect. The Counsel representing the appellants had pointed out that this is a bequest made in favour of unborn persons and hence the same is not valid and thus both the Courts below had recorded erroneous findings in relation to Ex-A2. The Counsel for the plaintiff - respondents in the appeal, per contra had explained the different provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ( for short 'the Act') and also had placed reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Damodara Moothan v. Ammu Amma and others, AIR (31) 1944 Madras 22 and also a decision of the Privy Council in the...
Tag this Judgment!G. Md. Masoom Vs. S.K. Khader Vali and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-30-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC794; 2005ACJ1802; 2004(2)ALD324
Ch. S.R.K. Prasad, J.1. Originally, this civil miscellaneous appeal was. heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court and he framed the following question:'Whether the owner of a vehicle can make a claim not only for damages caused to his vehicle but also business loss which he insured consequent on the damage having been caused to his vehicle.'2. The matter was asked to be placed before a Division Bench. The matter is placed before this Bench. An accident occurred after commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The owner of the vehicle claimed business loss under Section 166 of the Act. This is challenged by the Insurance Company. This Court has to consider whether the business loss can be claimed by the owner before the Claims Tribunal. Special Government Pleader is appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court in this case apart from hearing on both sides.3. The learned Counsel for the claimant mainly contends that the owner of the vehicle...
Tag this Judgment!State of A.P., Irrigation and Cad Department and ors. Vs. Gayatri Proj ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALT249
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. M/s. Gayatri Projects Limited, represented by its President-cum-Director, respondent in these Civil Revision Petitions, instituted suits O.S.No. 15/2000 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Karimnager, O.S.No. 28/2000 on the file of Additional District Judge, Nizamabad which was renumbered as O.S.No. 1/2001 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar and O.S.No. 34/2000 on the file of Additional District Judge, Nizamabad which was renumbered as O.S.No. 2/2001 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. In these suits, the respondent/plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the Revision petitioners in the respective Civil Revision Petitions/ defendants in the suits referred to supra, are not entitled to collect from the plaintiff Company the alleged liquidated damages relating to certain packages pertaining to the contract work under the Rehabilitation and Modernization of the Distributing System and repairs to Kakatiya Canal under S...
Tag this Judgment!Podelly Chinna Chinnanna Vs. Bandari Pedda Bhumanna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD241a; 2004(1)ALT585
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. This case, arising out of a reference made by one of us (Justice B. Prakash Rao), involves a question of law as to whether a person holding General Power of Attorney on behalf of a party to the suit can be examined as a witness on its behalf.2. Before dwelling into the question, the facts in brief are that this revision is filed at the instance of the defendant No. 10 aggrieved against the orders rejecting an application filed by him under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice seeking permission to prosecute the case through his General Power of Attorney, who is none other than his own son.3. The respondent filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 1/10th share in the schedule properties, claiming that he along with the defendants 1 to 9 are joint purchasers and the defendant No. 10 is in illegal occupation in collusion with them and constructed a house and the other defendants 11 to 13 are illegal encroachers without any valid purchase. The defendan...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sreerama Murthy and ors. Vs. the State, Through Inspector of Police ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD(Cri)563
V. Eswaraiah, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 1-11-1996 in C.C.No.10 of 1993 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died on 17-5-2000 and his wife was also died prior to him on 16-1-1998 after filing of the appeal. Therefore, the legal heirs of the appellant, his sons are permitted to come on record as appellants 2 to 4 as per the orders of this Court dated 10-7-2000. For the sake of convenience, the appellant is herein after referred to as accused.3. The Special Judge of SPE & ACB Cases held that the accused was found in possession dis-proportionate assets to the known sources of income of Rs.3,00,636-52 Ps., and the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec.5(2), read with Sec.5(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the Act) and accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one...
Tag this Judgment!Hyderabad Co-operative Central Trading Society Limited Vs. Registrar o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD768
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The Petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereafter called 'MSCS Act') which was running business in the name and style of Lakshmi Super Bazaar. The petitioner society availed cash credit facility from Hyderabad District Co-operative Central Bank Limited (hereafter called 'HDCCB'); in 1974 towards working capital for running Lakshmi Super Bazaar. The loan was guaranteed by Central Government. However, during the financial year 1994-95, Central Government did not extend bank guarantee and therefore third respondent stopped cash credit facility to the petitioner society. Whatever be the reason, Lakshmi Super Bazaar was closed with effect from 31.7.1998. Therefore HDCCB recalled the loan outstanding as on 31.3.1994. Challenging the same, petitioner filed W.P. No. 33564 of 2001 before this Court and obtained an order of interim suspension and also allegedly paid an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- to HDCCB. La...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vinodhar Vs. Executive Board of Nizam's Institute of Medical Scienc ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD505; 2004(1)ALT797
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner has been functioning as Deputy Registrar (MRD) in the Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, the 3rd respondent. A charge memo dated 16-11-2001 was issued by the 2nd respondent, the Director of the Institute, framing a charge against the petitioner. He submitted his explanation dated 15-12-2001. In accordance with the NTMS Employees Conduct and Appeal Rules (for short 'the Rules'), an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who in turn, submitted his report. The charge against the petitioner was held proved. Accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 9-5-2002. On consideration of the explanation dated 23-5-2002 submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 12-6-2002, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service.2. Aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement dated 12-6-2002, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Executive Board of the Institute, i.e., the 1st re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »