Andhra Pradesh Court October 2004 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.
Musku Pentu and anr. Vs. State of A.P. Represented by Public Prosecuto ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1358
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. A3 and A4 in Sessions Case No.1 of 1996, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge at Warangal, had preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 2. Sri P. Raghava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the ingredients of Section 395 IPC are not at all satisfied and it is doubtful how many persons are said to have participated in the commission of the crime on the fateful day and hence, the conviction recorded under Section 395 IPC may have to be set aside. The learned counsel also would further contend that P.Ws 1, 2 and 4 had participated in the test identification parade and P.W.1 identified A1 only, P.Ws 2 and 4 were unable to identify any one of the accused and in the light of the same, even if the witnesses deposed that they were able to identify the accused before the Court, it would be of no consequence. The learned counsel had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge and would comment that the findings recorde...
Sumeet Steel Traders Vs. Surendra Enterprises and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2005AP345; 2005(1)ALD193; IV(2005)BC229
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Both the appeals are decided by this common judgment.CCCA No. 46 of 1997:Appellant is the plaintiff who filed a suit being O.S. No. 454 of 1989 which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 28.10.1996. The suit was laid for recovery of Rs. 7,66,920-31 ps towards principal and Rs. 6,91,488.29 ps towards surcharge on the delayed payments with future interest at the rate of 33% p.a.2. The plaintiff asserted in the plaint that the plaintiffs firm was carrying on business as stockists, suppliers and commission agents of iron steel, hardware and pipes etc. The plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 entered into an understanding which was reduced into writing on 31.8.1985 agreeing that the plaintiff shall supply steel block tubes of ISI standard to the defendants' work site. Pursuant to the said understanding the defendants from time to time placed orders with the plaintiff and the plaintiff supplied the materials under delivery challans. Subsequently the agreement entered into betwe...
Government of A.P. and anr. Vs. R. Brahmaramba and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD62
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These applications are filed under Rules 99 to 101 of Order XXI, read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C), to set aside the order, dated 11.9.2002, passed by this Court, in Application Nos.989 and 990 of 2002, in C.S. No. l4 of 1958.2. The petitioners are the Government of A.P., represented by the District Collector, Hyderabad and Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of A.P. The facts that lead to filing of these applications may briefly be stated as under:In C.S. No. 14 of 1958, on the file of this Court, one of the lineal descendants of Khurshid Jahi Paigah claimed the relief of partition of the Matruka properties of her ancestor. These properties comprised of Jewellery, Bungalows with surrounding lands, and vast extents of lands in Makthas and Jagirs, in and around the City of Hyderabad. A preliminary decree was passed on 8.6.1963, on the basis of the compromise entered into between some of the parties, as well as certain findings rec...
Anoop Singh (Died) by Lrs. Vs. Chairman, Apseb and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD164; 2005(2)ALT194
Bilal Nazki, J.1. In this writ petition a memo dated 12.4.1989 issued by 2nd respondent and consequential memo dated 6.4.1995 issued by 1st respondent have been challenged.2. The petitioner was working as Additional Assistant Engineer at T.L.C. Stores, Hyderabad. He was transferred to Sirpur Kazagnagar on 3.2.1987. Earlier to his transfer, proceedings were taken against him for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,67,911-42 ps. and an enquiry was pending. The petitioner felt that his transfer from Hyderabad to Sirpur Kazagnagar was not proper when the enquiry was pending in Hyderabad. Therefore he filed a writ petition and during the pendency of the writ petition he made a representation that he would join at Sirpur Kagaznagar as and when the enquiry was decided. He submitted leave application during the pendency of the writ petition and thereafter submitted a joining report pending writ petition. 2nd respondent issued a memo on 12.4.1989 stating that in view of the Regulation 28(3) of the A...
S. Sultan and Co. and anr. Vs. Cement Corporation of India Ltd. and an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)647; 2005CriLJ1134
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. 1st respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), alleging that the 1st petitioner M/s. S. Sultan and Company which subsequently changed its name as M/s. Sultan Transport Private Limited, in settlement of the bills due to it issued three cheques bearing Nos. 0179828, 0179830 and 0179831 dated 14-1-1994 for Rs. 14,78,000/- each drawn on Vijaya Bank, Vijaya Nagar Colony Branch, which when presented for payment were returned dishonoured with an endorsement dated 9-4-1994 'Exceeds arrangement' and so, a statutory notice dated 11-4-1994 was issued by it to the petitioners under registered post with acknowledgment due and also under certificate of posting. The registered notice was returned on 21-4-1994 with an endorsement 'premises locked'. It could succeed in serving notice personally on the 2nd petitioner on 25-4-1994 but petitioners d...
Vishal Paper Tech India Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)210; 2005CriLJ1838
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Second respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners and others alleging that the accused who entered into an agreement on 20-1-1995 to purchase a Multi-layer coated boards manufacturing, machine for Rs. 380.00 lakhs on ex-works basis, took bank guarantees and post-dated cheques as security for due performance of the contract, and that as per the terms agreed between them those bank guarantees and post-dated cheques have to be returned on pro-rata basis on the basis of the supplies made and even after it supplied the machinery worth Rs. 380.00 lakhs, the accused who paid the price of Rs. 380 lakhs, as agreed, had, with a view to defraud it, presented some of the cheques, which have to be returned to it as per the understanding, for payment and when those cheques were dishonoured, accused not. only launched criminal prosecution against it but had also, fraudulently, invoked the bank guarantees without returning them, and hence are liable for pun...
Mallipeddy Seshaiah (Died) and ors. Vs. Nadendla Tulasamma (Died) and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2005AP221; 2005(2)ALD821; 2005(2)ALT398
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Three suits being O.S.No. 165 of 1980, O.S.No. 35 of 1981 and O.S.No. 105 of 1981 were decided together by Prl. Subordinate Judge, Ongole on 2-2-1996. Three appeals being A.S.No. 1313 of 1996, A.S.No. 1179 of 1999 and 2850 of 1996 were filed against the common judgment and decree of the trial Court and they were decided together by a learned single Judge of this Court on 13-12-1999. Hence these L.P.As.2. Suit properties originally belonged to one Nadendla Sheshaiah. Plaintiff No. 1 and his daughter-plaintiff No. 2 filed O.S.No. 165 of 1980. Plaintiff No. 1 claimed to be Nadendla Sheshaiah's maternal uncle's son. They sought a declaration of title in respect of plaint 'A' schedule property in favour of plaintiff No. 1 and plaint 'B' schedule property in favour of plaintiff No. 2. They also sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession in respect of the suit schedule properties basing on the Will dated 20-2-19...
Ananthapur Municipality, Rep. by Its Commissioner, P. Dhanunjaya Vs. S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD814; 2005(1)ALT632
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. The petitioner-Municipality of Ananthapur approached this Court seeking to declare that the award of the 4th respondent dated 16-2-2004 passed in I.D. No. 153 of 2002 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and without jurisdiction. 2. The 1st respondent was appointed as a turn-cock(Last grade) on 12-2-1963 and he was promoted as a Water works Pipeline Fitter through the proceedings dated 5-5-1966. The petitioner contends that the 1st respondent is in a supervisory cadre, supervising the work of the turn-cocks, therefore he will not come within the definition of workman and he is not entitled to continue till he completes the age of 60 years. When the petitioner issued an order dated 25-3-2002 directing the 1st respondent to retire at the age of 58 years, he approached the 4th respondent-Industrial Tribunal claiming that he comes within the definition of 'workman' and as the petitioner-Municipality was declared as 'an industry' he is entitled to continue till he c...
The Managing Director, A.P. Dairy Development, Cooperation Federation ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALT168
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J. 1. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioner-Management i.e. the Managing Director, A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federat! ion Ltd. filed W.P. No. 18845 of 2003 and the petitioner-workman viz. T.G.Koteswara Reddy filed the W.P. No. 23036 of 2003 against the Award dated 21.1.2003 in I.D. No. 54 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. Both the Writ Petitions were filed against the I.D. No. 54 of 2001. The Management filed the said Writ Petition questioning the Award passed by the Labour Court directing the Management to reinstate the workman i.e. petitioner in W.P. No. 23036 of 2003 into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits and further directing to refund an amount of Rs.74,482/- which was recovered towards the shortage of molasses. The petitioner-workman filed the said Writ Petition aggrieved by the Award passed by the Labour Court in sofaras it we...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through Its Branch Manager Vs. the C ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC272; 2006ACJ2832
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J. 1. All these Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioner-New India Assurance Company Limited to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records against the similar! orders dated 17.10.2003 and 23.10.2003 made in different interlocutory applications in different Workmen's Compensation Cases on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Nizamabad seeking to set aside the same. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for all the parties. 3. As the similar issues are involved, all the writ petitions are disposed of by a common order. 4. The petitioner-New India Assurance Company Ltd. filed petition under Section 11(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the Act') to refer the claimant to the Medical Board, Nizamabad for medical examination and report. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition under Section 11(1) of the Act before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »