Andhra Pradesh Court November 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.
A.P.S.R.T.C. and ors. Vs. P. Kanakaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALT239
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. The Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 18236 of 2004 dated 07-10-2004.2. The matter relates to the stagnation increments to the employees in A.P.S.R.T.C.3. The unofficial respondent claimed stagnation increments on the ground that they had completed 12 years of service and therefore they are entitled for the same in pursuance of the settlement entered between the Management and the Union.4. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition basing on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1301 of 2001, dated 29-10-2002 and it is also brought to the notice of this Court that against the order of the Division Bench the matter was carried before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. and the Supreme Court dismissed the said S.L.P.5. Now the learned Standing Counsel appearing for A.P.S.R.T.C. submits that the clarificatory circular dated 9-11 -1989 in proceedings No. P1/93(12)/87-PD was not placed either befor...
B. Venkatadri Reddy Vs. P.A. Vanajakshi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD729; 2005(1)ALT640
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. A short but interesting question, namely, whether an application under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C., can be entertained, even before the actual attachment is effected, falls for consideration in this appeal.2. The facts in brief that lead to filing of this appeal, are as under:The appellant filed O.S. No. 191 of 1996, against the second respondent, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,03,000/-, on 30.12.1999, and the decree became final. The appellant filed E.P.72 of 2000. He sought for attachment of certain movables, said to be owned, by the second respondent, in premises bearing door number 13/293-2 in Sri Lodge Building at Bangalore bus stand of Madanapalle Town. Through order, dated 11.12.2000, the Trial Court directed attachment of the movables. The Amin of the Court proceeded to the said premises twice, but could not effect attachment, on account of the fact that, the premi...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. N. Ramanna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC687; 2005(2)ALD128; 2005(1)ALT657
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Even though Vacate Stay Petition No. 15519 of 2004 filed by the respondents has come up for consideration to-day, with the consent of both Counsel, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing and consideration since the controversy lies in a narrow compass.3. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore, challenging the award and decree dated 12-11-2003 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 171 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapur, wherein the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 83,728/- towards compensation to the parents of the deceased cleaner N. Chandranna in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27-11 -1998.4. This Court by order dated 23-2-2004 made in CM.P. No. 4098 of 2004, stayed all further proceedings of the decree and judgment dated 12411-2003 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 171 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional D...
Tatineni Venkata Krishna Rao Vs. K.C.P. Sugar and
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas422(AP); [2005(106)FLR60]; [2007]74SCL123(AP)
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This batch of revision cases, having common features, arises from a common point of significance in relation to the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') and its interpretation and hence, they have been heard and disposed of together.2. The brief facts of these revision cases are as follows:3. The petitioners are the employees of the first respondent-corporation and were allotted quarters to occupy the same for the convenience of the work. As per the terms and conditions, the petitioners have a right to stay during their tenure of employment or till their allotment is terminated by a notice either oral or in writing by the corporation. When the petitioners illegally participated in the strike and did not resume the work in spite of repeated demands made by the first respondent, they were dismissed from the service as per Clause 26 of the Standing Orders of the first respondent. On such dismissal, they have no right to continue t...
S. Prasad Reddy and ors. Vs. Collector and District Magistrate and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)338; 2005(3)ALT487
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. Common questions of law are raised in these Writ Petitions and hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment, however, keeping in view the incidents in each individual case.2. The Collector and the District Magistrate, Anantapur by virtue of the powers vested in him under Section 3 of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act (1 of 1986) (for brief the 'Act'), passed Orders of detention. Consequently, writs of habeas corpus came to be filed by the petitioners on behalf of detenus seeking production and release of the detenus after holding the Order of detention as illegal and invalid.3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General have elaborately and minutously argued most of the general issues arising out of preventive detention Orders. Therefore, it become inevitable for us to deal with each and every contention in ...
Regional Manager, Apsrtc and ors. Vs. N.B. Venkaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD389
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. The writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 20965 of 2003 dated 6-8-2004.2. The matter relates to the stagnation increments to the employees in APSRTC.3. The unofficial respondents claimed stagnation increments on the ground that they had completed 12 years of service and therefore they are entitled for the same in pursuance of the settlement entered between the Management and the Union.4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition basing on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1301 of 2000, dated 29-10-2002 and it is also brought to the notice of this Court that against the order of the Division Bench the matter was carried before the Supreme Court in SLP and the Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP.5. Now the learned Standing Counsel appearing for APSRTC submits that as the clarificatory circular dated 9-11-1989 in proceeding No. P1/98(12)/87-PD was not placed either before the Division B...
Ramky Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi Metal Industries and Constructi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD49
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. Fourth respondent in the writ petition is the appellant and is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of Respondent No. l. While allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge directed the fourth respondent (Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) to examine the letter dated 26.10.2004 received from the Superintending Engineer (Electrical), CPWD and if the clarification satisfies the condition of the tender, to accept the technical bid of the writ petitioner/Respondent .No. l and on acceptance thereof to open its price bid and forward the same to the third respondent herein for consideration along with the price bid of the appellant and to take appropriate decision thereupon in terms of the tender notice.2. Fourth respondent issued tender notice dated 7.9.2004 for execution of the work of development of new internal roads, footpaths, parking, landscaping and providing MS grill etc., in A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. Bidde...
Goutham Chand JaIn and ors. Vs. Baqtawar Begum and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD402
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These applications are listed before this Court for orders on office objections.2. The applications are filed for the relief of passing a final decree in C.S. No. 13 of 1958, in relation to various extents of land, referred to in the respective applications. The Registry raised three objections, namely, (a) that the parties to the suit be impleaded as respondents in the applications; (b) requisite stamps for engrossing the final decree be filed, and, (c) the Government, through its Revenue Department, be made as parties. The applications were re-presented by the Counsel for the petitioners, by stating that the property, in respect of which the final decree is sought for, was already allotted in favour of Defendant No. 2, and since the parties are claiming through Defendant No. 2, it is not necessary to implead other defendants in the suit. They undertook to file the stamps for engrossing the stamp duty, after the final decree is passed. As regards the 3rd ...
Markapuram Prasad Vs. Mada Subbaraidu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD105; 2005(1)ALT666
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 31 -01-2004 passed in E.P. No. 478 of 2002 in O.S. No. 594 of 2001, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah, by which the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge ordered detention of the Judgment-debtor in civil prison.2. The petitioner is the judgment-debtor and the respondent is the decreeholder in E.P. No. 478 of 2002 in O.S. No. 594 of 2001. The decreeholder filed E.P. No. 478 of 2002 for realization of the decretal amount and sought for detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison. It is the case of the decreeholder that the judgment-debtor having sufficient means to discharge the decretal debt neglected and avoided to pay the same. The executing Court issued notice to the judgment-debtor under Order 21 Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') in the format prescribed in Form No. 12 of Appendix E of Code. The judgment-debtor entered appearance and fi...
Devarakonda Purnachandrarao Vs. S. Chalamareddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD102; 2005(1)ALT500; [2005(105)FLR298]; 2005(3)SLJ259(NULL)
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 07-04-2004 in W.C. Case No. 79 of 2002, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-1, Guntur (for short 'the Tribunal')2. The appellant is the claimant, the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the Insurance Company.3. For the sake of convenience, the appellant, the first respondent and the second respondent will be referred to as 'the claimant, the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company' respectively.4. The undisputed facts are that the claimant was a long distance driver; that the accident took place in Maharashtra and that the vehicle in question and the owner of the vehicle belong to Andhra Pradesh. In the accident, the claimant suffered certain injuries to the elbow and shoulder joint of left hand. He claimed a total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-, whereas the Tribunal had awarded only a sum of Rs. 72,7...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »