Andhra Pradesh Court July 2005 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.
Sitamahalakshmi Enterprises Vs. Regional Director, Employees State Ins ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD492; (2006)ILLJ670AP
V. Eswaraiah, J. 1. The claimant is a Cinema Theatre situated at Tanuku of East Godavari District. It is the case of the respondent-ESI Corporation that the petitioner employed more than 20 persons and therefore, the petitioner is covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). There is no dispute in respect of a cinema theatre that if more than 20 persons are employed the said theatre would come under the coverage of the Act and the employer has to pay contribution to the employees employed.2. The basis for ad hoc assessment made by the ESI Corporation, while issuing orders dated 11.2.1999 under Section 45-A of the Act, is only a preliminary enquiry report, marked as Ex.R-5, of the ESI Inspector. Questioning the said orders dated 11.2.1999 in directing the petitioner to pay the contributions for the period from 10.6.1992 to 31.12.1998 for the 20 employees said to have been engaged by the petitioner, the petitioner filed E.I.C.No. 7 of 1999 under Section 75...
Rohit Parushram and ors. Vs. Dhiraj Rawal and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)446; IV(2006)BC572; 2005CriLJ4209
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. First respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') against petitioners in C.C. No. 350 of 2004 alleging that in pursuance of a compromise entered between him and the petitioners 1 to 3 before the Court, petitioners owed him Rs. 15,30,000/- and that they paid cash of Rs. 2,00.000/- on 29-01-2004, and had issued cheques bearing No. 104684, dated 9-3-2003 for Rs. 1,30,000/- Nos. 104685 and 104686, dated 15-03-2003 for Rs. 6,00,000/-each, and when he presented those three cheques for payment, they were returned with an endorsement of 'INSUFFICIENT FUNDS', and that in spite of his issuing a notice of dishonour with a demand for payment, petitioner failed to make the payment. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the said C.C. No. 350 of 2004.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the amount due and payable to the first respondent as per the compromise wa...
Official Liquidator, High Court of A.P. Vs. S. Haridass and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas5(AP)
N.V. Ramana, J.1. The official liquidator representing the company in liquidation, namely M/s. K. P. Geletine and Chemical (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), has filed this application to punish the respondents for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Companies Act').2. Pursuant to the order dated July 8, 1996, passed by this court ordering winding up of the company, the official liquidator issued notices to the respondents, who were the ex-directors of the company, calling upon them to file their statement of affairs, as required by the provisions of Section 454 of the Companies Act. As no statement of affairs were filed by the respondents, the official liquidator filed the present application to punish them.3. This court upon considering the rival contentions and upon hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, came to the conclusion that respondents Nos. 1 and 5 did not show any reasonable ...
Dasari Siva Prasada Rao and anr. Vs. Pasupuleti Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALT798
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This case demonstrates as to how the judicial process was put to gross misuse. Unfortunately, the Presiding Officer of the Court did not exhibit the care and caution, which was expected of him, to curtail such practices.2. The petitioners purchased a plot of 378 square yards at Chellapalli through separate sale deeds, dated 23-2-2005, from respondents 2 to 6 herein. Few weeks thereafter, they received a notice, dated 14-3-2005, from the 1st respondent to the effect that he lent a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to respondents 2 to 6 and that he came to know about the proposal of the latter to alienate the property to defeat his claim. The petitioners got issued a reply, dated 28-3-2005, to the 1st respondent. They stated that they purchased the property from respondents 2 to 6 for valuable consideration through sale deeds, dated 23-2-2005, and that the sale consideration, to their knowledge, was deposited in the Vijaya Bank. They alleged that the so-called liability ...
G. Gangaram Vs. Apseb and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD32; 2005(5)ALT524
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. The petitioner, while working as the Assistant Divisional Engineer with the respondents at Ramachandrapuram, was transferred to Lower Sileru Project, East Godavari District, vide proceedings dated 28-11-1991. On his representation, expressing his inability to join at Sileru Project, he was given posting orders on 28-10-1992 to join at Manuguru. Since the petitioner did not join duty thereat and did not apply for leave, a charge-sheet was issued on 18-10-1993 to the following effect:'It is reported that Sri G. Gangaram, Assistant Divisional Engineer (Elecl.) has absconded from duty with effect from 29-10-1991 by deserting that post and absconded himself unauthorisedly thereafter without applying for any leave. This constitutes misconduct as per A.P.S.E. Board (Revised) Conduct Regulations'2. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet on 17-1-1994. Not being satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered wherein the charge levelled ...
Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. Mohd. Azam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALT206
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent herein filed R.C.No. 111 of 1994 before the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Section 10(2)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short 'the Act') against the petitioner seeking eviction from the premises bearing No. 21-1-78, situated at Delhi Darwaza, Hyderabad. The respondent pleaded that he became the owner of the property through a sale deed dated 27-5-1989 and his vendor, in turn, purchased the property under a sale deed dated 20-8-1988 from the legal representatives of the original owner by name Syed Ali Jaffer. He pleaded that the petitioner was the tenant in respect of the premises for a long time and having paid the rents up to September 1992, he stopped the payment of rents.2. The petitioner resisted the R.C. According to him, the respondent is not the owner of the premises and not entitled to seek eviction. It was pleaded that during the life time of the father of the petitione...
P.R. Periakaruppan Vs. Chola Chits and Finance (P) Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP471; 2005(5)ALT345
P.S. Narayana, J.1. P.R. Periakaruppan, the unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 128/88 on the file of Addl. Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, had preferred the present appeal as against the Judgment and Decree, dated 27-9-1995. The suit was filed by the respondent herein-plaintiff, M/s. Chola Chits & Finance (P) Ltd., for recovery of damages of Rs. 50,000/-. The learned Addl. Subordinate Judge on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and D.W. 1, marked Exs. A-1 to A-16 and Exs. B-1 to B-3 and ultimately decreed the suit with costs for Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from 27-12-1995 till the date of realisation, granting three months time for payment, and if the appellant-defendant fails to pay the amount within three months, he has to pay interest of 6% per annum on Rs. 50,000/-from 27-12-1995 till the date of realization. Hence, the present appeal.2. Sri Suresh Reddy, the learned Counsel represen...
Syed Abdullah Vs. G. Rajamani and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD394; 2005(5)ALT117
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Sri B. Vijayasen Reddy, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri P.V. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel representing the respondents 1 and 2.2. The present civil revision petition is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to, in short 'the Act', for the purpose of convenience, against the order made in R.A.No. 163 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the order made in R.C.No. 137 of 1998 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.3. The petitioner herein is the tenant. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed R.C.No. 137 of 1998 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad on the ground of wilful default, bona fide requirement, subletting, acts of nuisance and causing damage. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 herein PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P. 10 were marked. On behalf of ...
Tata Projects Limited Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD791; 2005(5)ALT502
V. Eswaraiah, J.1. These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the order, dated 04-05-1998, made in E.I.C.No. 27 of 1996 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman; Industrial Tribunal-1, Hyderabad.2. C.M.A. 1506 of 1998 is filed by M/s. Tata Projects Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad, the petitioner in E.I.C.No. 27 of 1996. C.M.A.No. 2115 of 1998 is filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad, the respondent in E.I.C.No. 27 of 1996.3. Insofar as granting relief against the petitioner therein, making it liable to pay the contribution from 04-01-1996 instead of 01-01-1987, C.M.A.1506 of 1998 has been filed, contending that the appellant company is neither a 'shop nor a 'factory' either within the meaning of 'shop' as per the notification of Government of A.P., or within the meaning of 'factory' as per Section 2(12) of the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the...
Abid Ali Mirza Vs. Mir Syed Ali Khan
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD849; 2005(6)ALT690
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The revision petitioner is the tenant. The landlord was successful in getting an order of eviction in R.C. No. 2249/ 86 on the file of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad and in R.A. No. 264/93 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. But however in C.R.P. No. 3119/95 on the ground that the trial Court recorded a finding that the signatures appear to be different on each of the documents it was observed that it would be desirable that in the event of slightest doubt the matter to be left to the wisdom of experts. Accordingly the said civil revision petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. After the order of remand was made, the handwriting expert was examined and Exs.C-1 to C-7 were marked. The learned Rent Controller recorded a finding that already there is a finding relating to the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and in the light of the order of re...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »