Andhra Pradesh Court April 2008 Judgments

D. Dharmaiah E. 113501 Vs. Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(5)ALD8; 2008(3)ALT670; [2008(118)FLR693]; (2008)IIILLJ851AP

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was employed as Conductor in the A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 1987. On 30-5-2003, he was conducting a bus on the route from Bhadrachalam to Pocharam. A check took place between stages 18 and 19. On noticing certain cash and ticket irregularities, the Corporation issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 6-6-2003, framing 9 charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation, and not being satisfied with that, the respondent ordered domestic inquiry. A report was submitted, holding the charges against the petitioner proved. Through order dated 16-1-2004, the respondent removed the petitioner from service. Departmental appeal and review filed by the petitioner ware rejected. Therefore, he filed I.D. No. 89 of 2005, before the Labour Court, Warangal, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Through award dated 5-7-2007, the Labour Court dismissed the I.D. Hence, this writ petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that ...

Fayeem Khadri Vs. Vanam Bharatamma and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(5)ALD199; 2008(4)ALT644

ORDERT. Meena Kumari, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.12.2004 passed by the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A. Sr. No. 9012 of 2004 in O.S. No. 4050 of 2003.2. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 4050 of 2003 against the petitioner herein and respondents 2 to 4 for perpetual injunction. In that suit, the petitioner filed an IA Sr. No. 9012 of 2004 seeking to appoint Sri J. Ravinder as her General Power of Attorney to prosecute and defend her in the above suit. The trial Court, passed a cryptic and laconic order, which reads as under:Permitted.Admittedly, the aforesaid order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to be a speaking order. The learned trial Judge, in the impugned order, except stating that 'permitted' has not really considered the evidence on record in its proper perspective and dealt with the matter in a very laconic manner.3. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the matter has to be...

P. Archana @ Atchamamba Vs. Varada Siva Rama Krishna

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2008AP216; 2008(4)ALD408; 2008(4)ALT317; II(2008)DMC217

ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This appeal is preferred under Section 19(1) of Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order of the Family Court, Hyderabad, in O.P. No. 757 of 2005, dated 12-1-2007.2. The wife, whose application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month or in the alternative permanent alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/- was dismissed, is the appellant. The respondent herein is the appellant's husband. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the wife and husband respectively.3. The facts, in brief, are as under:The wife initially filed O.P. No. 766 of 2003 in the Family Court, Hyderabad under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. Though the husband contested the petition, on appreciation of the evidence adduced by both the parties, the Family Court, by order dated 6-10-2004, allowed O.P. No. 766 of 2003 and dissolved the marriage by way of decree of divorc...

State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Dy. Commercial Tax Officer

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(4)ALD473; 2008(4)ALT583

B. Prakash Rao, J.1. The petitioner which is a bank, through its branch, files this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking writ of mandamus declaring that Section 2(j) of Andhra Pradesh Tax on Profession, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987 (for short the 'Act') as amended in the year 1996 and explanation 1 of the first schedule to the Act, as ultra vires Article 276(2) of the Constitution of India, and further to declare the action of the respondent in collecting the profession tax for the years 1995-96 to 2005-2006 from the petitioner, and demanding the interest of Rs. 36,818/-, the alleged arrears of profession tax due for the said years 1995-96 to 2005-2006, by notice Rc. No. PTO/D/613/2005-06, dated 13.2.2006 and the payment of profession tax alleged to be due for the current financial year 2006-2007 for the main branch/extension counters/ATMs by a notice Rc. No. F5/PT/StSy/2006-07, dated 30.10.2006 as unconstitutional, illegal and...

Divisional Signal and Telecommunication Engineer (Constn) Ii, South Ce ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(4)ALD598

ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the order of the Labour Court, Hyderabad, in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is under challenge. Since in most of these cases, despite service of notice, no Counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the workmen, it would suffice if the facts as stated in WP No. 7140 of 1999, wherein the 1st respondent-workman is represented through Counsel, are taken note of.2. WP No. 7140 of 1999 has been filed by the South Central Railway, Secunderabad aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, Hyderabad, in CMP No. 1 of 1984 dated 13.3.1992. The 1st respondent-workman filed CMP No. 1 of 1984, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act'), before the Labour Court. In his petition filed before the Labour Court, the workman contended that he was appointed as a Casual Labour under the respondents therein on daily rate basis on 2.1.1967, that he was ...

Chairperson, Krishna District Lorry Owners Mutually Aided Co-operative ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(4)ALD652; [2008(119)FLR338]; (2009)IILLJ298AP

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner herein assails a common order, dated 24.11.2006, passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D. Nos. 234 and 235 of 2002, by filing these two writ petitions. The Industrial Disputes were raised by one Sri Balasubrahmanyam Chandra Kaladharan and Sri Y. China Sambasiva Rao, challenging the orders of their removal, on disciplinary grounds. For the sake of convenience, these two employees are referred to as respondents 1 and 2, respectively.2. The petitioner is a Mutually Aided Co-operative Society, having its branches at various places. The owners of the lorries in the area are the members of the petitioner Society, and it was established with an object of providing service to the vehicles owned by its members. The 1st respondent was initially appointed as a Sales Clerk, and thereafter promoted to the posts of Store Keeper, Assistant Branch Manager, and ultimately, as Branch Manager. By 22.4.2002, his salary was Rs. 5,252/- per month. The 2nd resp...

Mohd. Azam Vs. Birla Sunlife Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

D. Appa Rao, President: Oral: 1. The complainants are nominees and assignees of the policy holder, late Mohd. Mohtesham Azmi. Their case in brief is that late Mohd. Mohtesham Azmi a business man had taken various policies from the opposite parties/insurance companies after completing the formalities. As per the directions of the insurance companies premia were paid. They were accepted by the insurance companies, and policies were issued. Various details of the policies and nominees/assignees as the case may be are mentioned herein along with its case No.C.D. No. 69/20031. Name of Insurance CompanyBirla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.2. Policy No.277873. Date of Policy8.8.20024. Sum assuredRs. 70,48,758.685. PremiumRs. 2,98,900 (Quarterly)6. Nominee/LR/ AssigneeMohd. Azam (Father)7. ClaimRs. 70,48,758.68C.D No. 70/20031. Name of InsuranceOm Kotak Mahindra Life Company Insurance Co. Ltd.2. Policy No.132073. Date of Policy1.4.20024. Sum assuredRs. 75 lakh5. Nominee/LR/ AssigneeMohd. Azam (Fat...

Ravada Yerranna (Died) Per L.Rs. Vs. Ravada Thammunaidu (Died) Per L.R ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(4)ALD59; 2008(3)ALT468

G. Chandraiah, J.1. Heard both the counsel.2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1996 passed by the court of Subordinate Judge at Chodavaram in A.S. No. 25/1989 in allowing the appeal by reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.2.1989 passed by the court of Principal District Munsif, Chodavaram in O.S. No. 173/1983 and thereby dismissing the suit for injunction, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal.3. During the pendency of the first appeal, the original plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The original 1st defendant also died during the pendency of the second appeal and by order dated 7.11.2000 in CMP. No. 6835/1998, his legal representatives were brought on record.4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the original suit.5. The case of the plaintiff is that in the partition between himself and his brothers that took place about fifty years back, he got Ac.1-00 of wet and dry lands. Therea...

The Management of Apsrtc Rep. by Its Vice Chairman and Managing Direct ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(4)ALD422; 2008(3)ALT774; (2009)ILLJ439AP

ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. The Management of A.P.S.R.T.C has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, in I.D. No. 19 of 1997 dated 06.02.1998, wherein it was held that employees of the A.P.S.R.T.C. were entitled to be paid the difference between the ex-gratia payable to them in accordance with the amended Payment of Bonus Act and the actual ex-gratia paid to them under the pre-amended Payment of Bonus Act. On a dispute being raised by the 1st respondent - union, the Government of A.P, vide G.O.Rt. No. 662 dated 17.4.1997, referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal:Whether the APSRTC Employees Union is justified in demanding the Managing of APSRTC for payment of Ex-gratia for the year 1993-94 and to formulate exempted employees pension scheme? If so to what relief the workman are entitled to?2. The petitioner-corporation started paying ex-gratia t...

S.R. Communication Systems Vs. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(4)ALD531; 2008(4)ALT1

ORDERNooty Ramamohana Rao, J.1. This writ petition has been instituted calling in question the correctness and validity of the communication dated 09-08-2007 of the Additional Commissioner (Electrical) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, informing the writ petitioner the inability to consider its representation dated 01-08-2007 seeking extension of a day's time for submission of the report.2. The 1st respondent - Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (henceforth referred to as 'the Corporation') had floated a tender notice dated 27-04-2007 inviting proposals/expression of interest from eligible energy management firms/partnerships/consortiums/joint ventures for the implementation of 'Street Lighting Energy Efficiency and Automation Project' in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The expressions of interest (henceforth referred as 'the EOI', for brevity) are liable to be submitted on or before 5-00 pm on 11-05-2007. There are certain requirements, which have to ...