Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Avulapalli Girijamma, W/O. Chandra Sekhar Vs. Dr. J. Ramachandra, S/O. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)30
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging that he, a member of a scheduled caste community, while working as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Gurramkonda, was sent on deputation to Kandukuru Primary Health Centre, and when he went to Gurramkonda Primary Health Centre to claim his salary, he was informed that his salary was not drawn and so while was returning home, petitioners met him on the way and abused him in a filthy language, by invoking the name of his caste and had assaulted him and, hence, are liable for punishment under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act), and Section 323 I.P.C. was referred to police for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, after investigation, submitted a final report that the case of first respondent is false. On a protest petition, the learned Magistrate, after record...
Smt. Routhu Venkataratnam Vs. Miryala Venkata Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD792
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This C.M.A., is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 16.09.1999, in A.S.No.69 of 1996, on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram. A.S.No.69 of 1996, in turn, arises out of O.S.No.591 of 1988, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vizianagaram. The sole plaintiff in the suit is the appellant.2. The appellant filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,000/-, on the strength of a pronote. The respondents filed a written statement, in a way, admitting the execution of the pronote. However, they pleaded that they have discharged the suit debt, and in fact, they have paid a sum of Rs.7,000/- in excess. They made a counter claim for that amount. Through its judgment, dated 21.03.1996, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, respondents filed A.S.No.69 of 1996. The lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the matter for fresh disposal.3. Smt.Padma, learned counsel for the appellant subm...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors. Vs. Chirala Co-operati ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD629; [2005(105)FLR703]; (2005)ILLJ910AP
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation assailing the order, dated 1.6.2001 passed in E.I.C. No. 27 of 1999 on the file of the Employees' State Insurance Court at Hyderabad (for short 'the Trial Court').2. The Insurance Inspector of the appellant visited the factory of the respondent, a Co-operative Spinning Mill, on 22.5.1998 and verified various records, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the respondent was making the contributions properly for the period from 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998. He found that contribution to an extent of Rs. 1,09,213/- remained unpaid. Accordingly, a demand notice dated 20.9.1998 was issued to the respondent. The correspondence that ensued between the respondent and the appellant did not materialize. Therefore, the respondent filed E.I.C. No. 27 of 1999 before the Trial Court, under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') challenging the notice issued...
Nizam Sugars Ltd. Vs. Chelikani Sri Ranganayakulu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD222; [2005(104)FLR221]
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J. 1. The petitioner questions the order dated 20-2-2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in M.P. No. 58 of 2000.2. The first respondent herein was an Ex-employee of the petitioner-Nizam Sugars Limited who took voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short 'V.R. Scheme'), introduced by the petitioner in 1996. As per the Scheme, the petitioner paid the entire exgratia payable to the first respondent. It is stated that after retirement under V.R. Scheme, the first respondent made a demand vide his notice dated 6-9-1996 stating that the management granted him exgratia at the time of voluntary retirement by calculating daily wages after taking into account the last drawn wages per month divided by 30 days instead of 26 days and thus, there is a difference in payment of exgratia amount of Rs. 31,447.80 Ps., payable to him. As no reply was given to the said notice dated 6-9-1996, the first respondent filed an application ...
S. Jaya Prakash Narayana Vs. K.K.N. Kumari and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD560; 2004(6)ALT755
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1.This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order dated 10.7.2000 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, in O.S. (S.R.) No.5626 of 1999.2. The appellant filed the suit against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,76,634/-. It was pleaded that Respondents 2 to 4 made him to lend a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the first respondent, which in turn was to be invested in making a film 'OMKARAM' and that the amount was to carry interest at the rate of 24% per annum. It was alleged that the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was repaid on 9.2.1997, whereas the accrued interest was not paid, in spite of demands.3. The Trial Court examined the contents of the plaint and rejected it through the order under appeal, on finding that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action.4. Smt. M. Jayanthi, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the question as to whether the suit claim was valid, ought to have been considered in the trial of the...
Hindustan Shipyard Limited Vs. Essar Oil Limited and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD421; 2005(1)ALT264; 2005(1)ARBLR454(AP)
T. Meena Kumari, J.1. As the parties in both the CMAs are one and the same and the issue involved in those CMAs are identical, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. CMA No. 255 of 2003 has been directed against the decree and order dated 10-10-2002 in OP. No. 989 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam whereas CMA No. 624 of 2003 has been filed against the decree and order dated 1-11-2002 in O.P. No. 96 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam.3. The appellant herein is the petitioner in OPs and the respondents herein are the respondents in the OPs. The appellant in both the OPs is Hindustan Shipyard Limited rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director through Deputy Manager (Legal) whereas the first respondent in both the OPs is M/s. Essar Oil Limited and the second respondent is the Chairman of the Arbitrary Tribunal and respondents 3 and 4 are the arbitrators of the said Tribunal.4. The brief facts that ...
Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle Department and ors. Vs. B. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALT436
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.2. Aggrieved by the award dt. 26-2-2000 made in I.D. No. 122 of 1995 on the file of the Labour Court, III, Hyderabad, the Irrigation Officials filed this Writ Petition to quash the same.3. The 1st respondent herein raised a dispute against the action of the petitioners in not accepting his joining report, pursuant to his reappointment on 25-5-1976 as Telephone Operator and the said dispute was referred and considered by the Labour Court by the aforesaid award dt. 26-2-2000, which was allowed partly, holding that the 1st respondent is entitled to reappointment as a Mazdoor or equivalent post in the Irrigation department without any back wages or consequential benefits. But, however, his services will be calculated from the date of filing I.D. No. 122 of 1995, i.e., 13-7-1995 onwards.4. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent was appointed as Mazdoor in the Irrigation department on 19-1...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Are Poshanna @ Posalu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALT455
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondents 1 to 4 filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from respondents 5 and 6 and the appellant who are the driver, owner and insurer of the Tractor bearing No. API.T. 5337 alleging that when Srinivas (the deceased), who is son of respondents 1 and 2 and brother of respondents 3 and 4, was working in the fields of Muthyamreddy, fifth respondent, while driving the tractor, belonging to the sixth respondent and insured with the appellant, in a rash and negligent manner ran the tractor over the deceased resulting in his instantaneous death and since the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month and was aged about 19 years at the time of his death, they are entitled to Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents 5 and 6 and the appellant.2. Respondents 5 and 6 filed a counter contesting the claim contending that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased. Appellant also filed a counter contesting the claim mai...
Sanka Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]142STC496(AP)
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Order dated May 17, 1996 passed in the revisions, by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, has been challenged by way of these special appeals.2. One of the grounds agitated to strike down the impugned order is that though the order is shown to have been passed on May 17, 1996, it was actually passed some time after May 17, 1996. Admittedly May 17, 1996 was the last date in view of the law of limitation, when the order could have been passed by the revisional authority. In this connection, the appellants submit that though the order is purported to have been passed on May 17, 1996, it was received by the appellants on November 14, 1996 and it has been despatched on November 1, 1996.3. We have seen the record. Record also shows that while the impugned order bears the date May 17, 1996, the order was sent to the appellants by despatching it only on November 1, 1996. There is no explanation in the record nor any explanation has been given by the respondent, as...
HussaIn Pasha Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: II(2007)ACC454
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Alleging that when he was travelling in a bus belonging to respondent No. 1 being driven by the respondent No. 2, the said bus met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 resulting in injuries and consequent permanent disability to him, appellant filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 from respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed a counter denying the accident and involvement of the appellant therein and putting the appellant to proof of all the allegations in the claim petition. Respondent No. 2 remained ex parte.2. In support of his case, the appellant examined himself as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and marked Exhs. A1 to A7. On its behalf, respondent No. 1 examined respondent No. 2 as RW-1 but did not adduce any documentary evidance. The Tribunal having held that since the earlier O.P. filed by appellant on the same cause of action was dismissed, this O.P. is not maintainable, dismissed the claim petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »