Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. Vs. Spartex Ceramics India Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD316; [2005]57SCL467(AP)
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. M/s. Mahsrashtra Apex Corporation is the petitioner. The petition under Sections 433(e) and 434 read with Section 439(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, the Act) is filed for winding up of the respondent company, namely, M/s. Sparten Ceramics India Limited. This Court ordered Notice before admission on 30.4.2003. After receiving notice, the respondent company entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit opposing the Company Petition. Thereafter, the matter has been coming up for admission, and for orders as to publication of petition under Rule 99 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short, the Rules).2. The averments made in the petition for the purpose of this order, in brief, are as follows. The respondent company was incorporated under the Act in the State of Andhra Pradesh having its Registered Office at Mittapalem in Chittoor District. The authorized share capital of the respondent as on 31.3.1999 is Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) ...
Sugnibai @ Shakuntala and ors. Vs. Rafat Ali
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD203; 2004(6)ALT100
ORDERDalava Subrahmanyam, J.1. The above revisions are directed against the common judgment and decree in RA No. l12 of 2002, RA No. 165 of 2002 and IA No. 1023 of 2002 in RA No. 112 of 2002, dated 8-11- 2002 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in allowing RA No. l12 of 2002 and IA No. 1023 of 2002 and dismissing the Cross-Appeal in RA No. 165 of 2002.2. The matrix of the case in brief are as follows:The revision petitioners filed RC.No. 556 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Section 10(2) of A.P., Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 praying for eviction of the respondent/tenant viz., Rafat AH from the petition schedule property situated at Mahaboobgunj, Hyderabad and to deliver vacant possession. The petitioners contended that they are the owners and landlords of petition schedule premises situated at Mahaboobgunj and the respondent is the tenant since about 26 years. The tenancy is oral and month-to-...
D. Nagulu Naidu Vs. Executive Officer, Ttd
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD643
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. One Sri D. Nagulu Naidu is the petitioner in these two writ petitions. In WP No. 3641 of 1996 the petitioner is assailing the proceedings of the Respondent - Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD) dated 30-1-1996 whereunder the petitioner was held to be not entitled for appointment as Electrician in the service of TTD.2. Pending the said writ petition, by proceedings dated 12-7-1996 the petitioner was appointed as Electrician with effect from the date of his acquiring I.T.I., qualification. However, subsequently the said order of appointment was withdrawn by the TTD vide proceedings dated 19.12.1996. Challenging the said proceedings dated 19-12-1996, the petitioner filed WP No. 1593 of 1997.3. The facts which are common to both the writ petitions may be noted in brief:The petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1979 as NMR Skilled Electrician in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Museums at Tirupathi on temporary basis. Some of the temporary employees of TTD incl...
M.D., A.P. State Corporation Bank Ltd. Vs. Labour Court-ii and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD146; [2005(105)FLR424]
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. These two writ petitions which arise out of the award dated 23-11-1996 in ID No. 124 of 1993 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The second respondent in WP No. 12214 of 1997 was appointed as a supervisor in the Agricultural Development Bank, Devarakonda in the year 1966. Subsequently, he was transferred to Koonavaram and from there to Armoor. While he was serving at Armoor, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the ground of certain irregularities alleged to be committed in disbursement of loans while working at Koonavaram Agricultural Development Bank. After conducting due enquiry, by order dated 30-7-1986 he was dismissed from service. The appeal preferred by the 2nd respondent was also dismissed by the Board of Directors of the A.P. Co-operative Central Agricultural Development Bank vide proceedings dated 28-5-1990. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent raised an indust...
Sridevi Constructions Co., Rep. by Its Managing Partner, Sri M. Rama R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD471; [2005]ICompCas452(AP)
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. This revision under Section 115 C.P.C. is directed against the order in O.P. No. 41 of 1997, dated 27-08-2002, passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners in the O.P. are the petitioners in the revision.2. The facts relevant to the revision, in brief, are as under:3. In the year 1987 the respondents, viz., the Commander of Works Engineer and Chief Engineer, Navy, Visakhapatnam, issued tender notice dated 24-08-1987, inviting tenders for the work of construction of residential quarters. The 1st petitioner-for short, the petitioner, is a firm engaged in the construction activity (petitioners 2 and 3 are its managing partners). It quoted a sum of Rs. 28,87,124.90 ps. and emerged as the successful tenderer. The work was scheduled to be completed within 18 months from 23-08-1988. After several extensions being granted, the work was ultimately completed by 7-12-1992. The petitioner submitted the final bill in the year 1993...
Kompelli Venkataiah, S/O. Sayanna and ors. Vs. Mohd. Afzal Miya S/O No ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD397
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Appellants who are the father, sisters and brothers of K. Mahender (the deceased) filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- alleging that when the deceased and others were proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP-36-T-9935 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, being driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, it met with an accident resulting in the death of the deceased. Respondents 1 and 2 chose to remain ex parte before the Tribunal and in this Court. Third respondent filed a counter. In support of their case, appellants examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.20. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents but Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked by consent on its behalf. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto, passed an award for Rs.3,27,500/- in favour of the appellants against the respondents. Dissatisfied with the co...
Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway Vs. C. Ramesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALT702
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The writ petitioners filed W.P. No. 18517 of 2003 seeking a declaration against the appellants herein that the action in making an attempt to open the Railway Level Crossing Gate No. 47, at Tadukupet, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District which was closed six months back as illegal and opposed to public policy. The writ petition itself has been filed in purported public interest.2. The case set up by the writ petitioners is that for the benefit of the vehicular traffic, a by-pass road was laid on the route Nagari to Arekonam. At that point, there were two railway level crossings viz., L.C. Nos. 46 and 47 and a decision was taken to close LC No. 47 by the railways in consultation with the State Government. All of a sudden, without any reason or justification, the railways have decided and started taking steps to open LC No. 47, which was already closed at the behest of some of the vested interests. During the course of hearing of the writ petition at the admissi...
Cheekati Nageswara Rao Vs. G. Rama Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ2248; 2004(5)ALD395
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Alleging that he received injuries while travelling in the lorry bearing No.APH-2933 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, appellant filed a claim petition seeking Rs.50,000/- as compensation from the respondents. After contest by the respondents, the Tribunal passed an Award for Rs.25,000/- against the first respondent only and exonerated the second respondent from its liability on the ground that appellant was travelling as passenger in a goods vehicle.2. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that since the appellant was travelling with a deflated tyre to get it repaired, he should be treated as a passenger traveling with his goods, who also is covered by the insurance, second respondent also should be made liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, more so, because in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs . KAMALA, : [2001]2SCR797 it is ...
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Rep. by Its Divisional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC47; 2006ACJ2234; 2004(5)ALD411
C.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. This is an appeal by the 2nd respondent (insurer) in O.P. No. 498 of 1994 on the file of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- 2nd Addl. District Judge, Guntur questioning the finding of the Tribunal on the issue relating to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, belonging to the 1st respondent in the O.P., and the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, without obtaining permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act')2. Since in National Insurance Company -v- Nicolleta Rohtagi, : [2002]SUPP2SCR456 , it is held that an insurer cannot maintain an appeal, without obtaining permission under Section 170 of the Act, questioning the quantum of compensation or the finding as regards negligence of the offending vehicle, the maintainability of the appeal is questioned. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the award under appeal was passed on 8-12-1997 and since Nicolleta ...
S. Zaheer Ahmed Khan, S/O Late Mohd. MasheeruddIn Khan and anr. Vs. S. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP505; 2004(4)ALD466; 2004(5)ALT113
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This revision is preferred by defendants 1 and 3 in O.S. No. 12 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Alampur, questioning the order dated 20-4-2004 of the learned Junior Civil Judge refusing to give an exhibit mark to a document put to P.W.1 (plaintiff) during Cross examination as the execution of that document was denied by him. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that in pursuance of an agreement between the plaintiff and defendants in the suit, a letter was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants and for reasons best known to him, plaintiff denied his signature in the letter, and so the defendants filed a petition to send the said document i.e letter, to an expert to compare the signature therein with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff, who after examining the signature in the letter and the admitted signature opined that the signature in the disputed document(letter) was made by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »