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.
Zainab Bee Vs. Fatima Begum and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALT112
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The appellant and the 1st respondent are the wives of one late Sabir Khan. He was employed as a Machinist in the Government Press. He retired from service and thereafter, died on 24-01-1996. The appellant made a claim before the 2nd respondent-employer, for payment of the family pension exclusively to her, on the basis of the nomination said to have been made by late Sabir Khan in the service records, during his life time. The 1st respondent also made an application before the 2nd respondent-employer for payment of half of the family pension stating that she is the first wife of the deceased-employee. Since the 2nd respondent did not accede to her request, the 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 3876 of 1998 in the Court of the learned XVI Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for a declaration that she is entitled to receive half of the pensionary benefits of her husband. The suit was resisted by the appellant, on the...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Rep. by Its Regional Manager Vs. M. Sh ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC677; 2006ACJ775; 2005(6)ALD56; 2005(5)ALT750; [2006(108)FLR267]
R. Subhash Reddy, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, aggrieved by the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-1, Hyderabad, passed in W.C. Case No. 131 of 2004.2. For the purpose of convenience, I refer the parties herein as arrayed before the Tribunal below.3. The first respondent herein who was claimant before the Tribunal below, filed application, claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-, under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The said claim was made on account of personal injuries suffered by him accidentally on 1-10-2003. As stated in the claim application, It was his case that he was employed by the first Opposite Party as driver on his vehicle, i.e. Tata Sumo No. AP 15 V 5701, which was insured with Opposite Party No. 2, on monthly wage of Rs. 3,500/-, apart from daily batta of Rs. 100/-. It was st...
The Gazetted Food Inspector, Div. I Vs. P. Mohan Goud
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)689; 2005CriLJ4267
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The instant appeal Is directed against the Order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, by his judgment dated ! 2-6 2000 in C.C. No. 203 of 1995.2. The Food Inspector, Division-I, ] Mahabubnagar District, laid the complaint against the respondent herein as another under Sections 2(ia)(m) and 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity 'the PFA Act'). It is alleged inter alia in the complaint that the complainant inspected the toddy depot of TCS Group Wanaparthy on 16-3-1995. The respondent/ A.2 is a President of the said depot. A. 1 was found selling toddy in the said premises. At 10.40 a.m. on the said day the complainant along with P.W. 4 Assistant Food Controller, Zone-VI, Hyderabad, and his Attender visited the premises in question and found A.I. conducting business. Upon introducing himself and suspecting the adulteration of toddy, he immediately called upon P.Ws. 2 and 3 from the local area ...
Ashok Kumar Vs. the State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD584
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri K.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for appeals.2. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that though all the issues were answered in favour of appellant/plaintiff only on the question of suit being barred by limitation, the suit was dismissed. The learned counsel would contend that from the date of rejection of the bills inasmuch as the suit was filed within three years, the last day being the holiday on the next day the suit was instituted which is within the time in view of Article 113 of the Limitation Act,1963. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded in relation thereto.3. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for appeals would contend that this suit is for recovery of the price for the work done and a portion of the work had...
Poola Lakshmi Narayanamma, W/O. P. Peeraiah Vs. Gaddam Venkata Subbaia ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD508; 2005(5)ALT755
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 21.6.2005 made in I.A. No. 777 of 2005 in O.S. No. 17 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Cuddapah. The said application was filed by the revision petitioner for appointment of Commissioner to record her evidence in Cuddapah Town. The learned Judge recorded certain reasons and observed that it is necessary for the Court to observe the demeanour of the witness, and further recoded that the medical certificate issued by the doctor does not speak about diabetics but speaks that the petitioner was suffering from bacillary dysentery and low blood pressure. The learned Judge also observed about the direction given by this Court to decide the matter within 6 months on 25.10.1994.2. Heard Sri S.Laxmi Narayana Reddy, counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri G.V. Raghava Reddy, counsel representing the respondents.3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-plaintiff would s...
K. Doraiswamy Vs. Management of Sri Bajarang Jute Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD41; 2005(5)ALT390
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 24-8-1998 passed by the Labour Court at Guntur in M.P. No. 56 of 1995 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') rejecting the claim of the petitioner-workman.2. It is an unfortunate case that in spite of there being an order passed by the Labour Court earlier, which attained finality in a writ petition filed by the Management before this Court, the petitioner was not permitted to join duty. In the meanwhile, the industry was declared sick and in view of the order passed by the BIFR, it was taken over by another Management (1st respondent herein). Even when the new Management did not permit the petitioner to join duty, he filed a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Act claiming wages. The said petition was taken up as M.P. No. 56 of 1995 and ultimately, the same was dismissed on 24-8-1998.3. The brief facts, which are not in dispute and require to be noticed, are that ...
Nandam Mohanamma and ors. Vs. Markonda Narasimha Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: AIR2006AP8; 2005(5)ALD296
L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. Defendants in O.S. No. 205 of 1989, on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Rajahmundry, are the appellants.2. The respondents filed the suit for the relief of recovery of possession of suit schedule property, on the basis of termination of the lease, and for damages for use and occupation of the suit schedule property, upto the date of the suit. It was pleaded. that the open land of 149 sq.yards, situated in Ward No. 10, and described in the suit schedule, was leased to Sri Hemasundara Rao, the husband of the first appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3, initially, in the year 1968, for a period of ten years, and thereafter, in the year 1978 for another spell of ten years. It was alleged that the appellants did not vacate the premises, even after the expiry of the lease, and as such, a notice dated 5.3.1988, was issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the lease. They pleaded that they are entitled for the relie...
R. Jayaprada Bai and ors. Vs. Bondili Jayasri Bai and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD249; 2005(6)ALT775
D.S.R. Varma, J1. Heard both sides.2. Defendants 3, 11 and 12 in Original Suit No. 327 of 1994 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, are the appellants herein.3. The suit O.S.No. 327 of 1994 was filed for partition.4. For the sake of convenience, the appellants and the respondents will be referred to as 'the defendants 2, 11 and 12' and 'the plaintiff's', respectively.5. For better appreciation, it is useful to notice the prayer in the plaint, which reads thus:'(a) partition of the plaint schedule property into forty eight equal shares and for allotment of twenty one such shares therein to the plaintiff by metes and bounds and put her in her separate possession thereof;(b) for costs of the suit; and(c) granting of such other relief/s as the Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'6. At the outset, it is to be noticed that there was no relief sought for by the plaintiff with regard to past mesne profits at all in the suit.7. The suit ...
A.P. Gas Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commis ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: AIR2006AP12; 2005(6)ALD368
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Both these writ petitions are filed by A.P. Gas Power Corporation Limited (APGPCL), aggrieved by a common order passed by A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC), the first respondent herein, in O.P(SR) Nos. 19 and 20 of 2004 dated 4.6.2004. This common order shall dispose of both the writ petitions.2. O.P.(SR) No. 19 of 2004 was filed by A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited (A.P.TRANSCO) under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act, for brevity) seeking orders from APERC to direct APGPCL to allocate surrendered energy to A.P.TRANSCO from latter's 172 MW, Stage II Power Plant on pro rata basis from the date of Memorandum of Understanding-II (MoU-II). O.P(SR) No. 20 of 2004 was also filed by A.P.TRANSCO under Section 86(1)(f) of the Act praying APERC to pass orders directing APGPCL that allocation of power from latter's power plants cannot be made to consumers other than HT Industrial Consumers as per provisions of MoU-I and MoU-II.3. A.P.TR...
Neelam Bhadramma Vs. Marri Lakshmamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD292
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Ramesh representing Sri S.V. Bhatt, the learned Counsel for appellant and Sri Srinivas representing Sri Dasaratha Reddy, the learned Counsel for respondent. 2. Both the Counsel made elaborate submissions taking this Court through the pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court. 3. Sri Ramesh, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had drawn the attention of this Court through the affidavit filed in support of the application C.M.P. No. 18112/2000 wherein the relief for reception of additional evidence had been prayed for and would contend that these documents were available during the pendency of the suit, the Counsel had not filed the same and these documents are very essential to prove the factum of possession and hence, for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute, the matter may have to be remanded after receiving the additional evidence. The learned Counsel also placed relian...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »