Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-06-2003
Reported in : 2004(3)ALD128; 2004(3)ALT159; III(2004)BC227
..... was the inaction on the part of the plaintiff and the consequence thereof would invariably be the discharge of the guarantors in accordance with the provisions contained in section 134 of the indian contract act. further, inasmuch as the plaintiff was sought to collude with the first defendant and did not respond to the request of defendants 2 to 5 and dragged ..... counterclaim and when to be filed. in para-28 of the judgment, the apex court laid down the law thus:'looking to the scheme of order 8 as mentioned by act 104 of 1976, we are of the opinion, that there are three modes of pleading or setting up a counter-claim in a civil suit. firstly, the written statement filed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-18-2003
Reported in : 2003(5)ALT318
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The substantial question of law which arises for consideration in this Second Appeal is as hereunder:'Is not the appellate Court in error in reversing the Judgment and decree of the trial Court without considering the recitals in Ex.A-1 regarding passing of consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and as such finding is vitiated for non-consideration of the material evidence on record?'2. The unsuccessful plaintiff, aggrieved by the reversing Judgment and decree made in A.S.No. 9/90 on the file of District Judge, Mahaboobnagar had preferred the present Second Appeal. The appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit O.S.No. 78/87 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at 18% per annum and costs.3. The parties are referred to as arrayed before the Court of first instance as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant'.4. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is a business man by profession and in that connection when he went to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-27-2003
Reported in : 2003(6)ALT83
C.V. Ramulu, J.1. In these two Writ Petitions the parties are one and the same and they are interconnected. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. Writ Petition No. 29055 of 1995 is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the scale of pay and allowances and other benefits on par with other employees in the cadre of Assistant from P.R.C. 1989, while Writ Petition No. 2'784 of 2001 is filed for a Mandamus directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner in service as Assistant/Typist/ TTOT from the date of Judgment in Writ Petition No. 16903 of 1989 i.e. 11-7-1991 and to pay all consequential benefits.3. The facts in both the cases are similar. As such, the facts as stated in Writ Petition No. 2784 of 2001 are as under:According to the petitioner, he had passed B. Com. degree and Typewriting Higher Grade and appeared for an interview for the post of Assistant/Typist in the respondent-organization having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-17-2003
Reported in : 2003(6)ALT284
..... the appellants/defendants are income tax assesses. but however, clear findings had been recorded that definitely the appellants/defendants are not entitled to the benefits of either act no. 4/38 or act no. 7/77 for the reason that they are owning sago factory and also a tiles factory and this is a finding of fact. therefore, at ..... court. the learned counsel also commented that definitely the appellate court had erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellants/defendants are not entitled to the benefit of act no. 4/38 merely because the appellants own certain factories. the findings relating to the same had been pointed out by the learned counsel.8. per contra sri ..... and they did not borrow the money for business purpose. the defendants are not income-tax assessees and they are agriculturists entitled for the benefits of a.p. act 4/38. hence the interest is liable to be scaled down and therefore prayed to dismiss the suit.6. the court of first instance had settled the following .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-24-2003
Reported in : 2003(6)ALT462
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. This L.P.A was filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge in C.C.C.A.No. 147 of 1987, dated 4-12-2001 confirming the judgment of the trial court in O.S.No. 400 of 1983, dated 30-7-1987 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant herein seeking for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and accordingly sought for a consequential injunction restraining the 1st defendant-1st respondent AP Hosing Board from interfering with his possession.2. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff-appellant miserably failed to establish his title to the suit schedule property and accordingly dismissed the suit. Hence, the present L.P.A.3. Initially, Mr.Vilas V. Afzulpurkar appearing for the appellant strenuously contented that the suit schedule property is separated by a road from the land acquired for construction of houses by the A.P. Housing Board without proper identification of the lands with re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-16-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)ALT779
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed by the Central Government challenging the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 3 of 2001, dated: 12-3-2003.2. The respondent filed an O.A. challenging the Order dated: 29-9-1997 passed by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Bhadrachalam, Khammam Division removing the respondent from service as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. The respondent, who is an applicant before the tribunal was appointed as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (for brief 'E.D.D.A.'), Pinapaka in Bhadrachalam sub-area with effect from 15-9-1981. While he was working at Pinapaka, he applied for leave from 6-2-1996 to 25-2-1996 on the ground that his brother-in-law fell sick and he has to be treated at Hyderabad. Ultimately, his brother-in-law expired. It is also his case that on account of the tremendous stress, he also fell sick and could not resume duty. A charge memo dated: 30-12-1996 was served alleging that h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-29-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)ALT784
..... has not discussed the evidence on record, the judgment under appeal is not sustainable. strong reliance is placed on ali mohamood v. special court under a.p. land grabbing (prohibition) act, : 2000(5)ald172 (d.b.).and gorrella durga vara prasada rao v. indukuri ram raju, : 2002(2)alt589 in support of the said contention. it is no doubt true that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-10-2003
Reported in : I(2005)ACC415
..... accident occurring prior to 1st july, 1989 the division bench answered in a negative way stating that section 140 of the act has no retrospective effect. reliance was also placed on adagari aruna v. kammampati parameswara rao (supra). in a.a.o. no. 1132 of 1998, wherein this ..... independent civil miscellaneous appeals and the said owners intend to take shelter under the same appeal preferred by the appellant national insurance co. ltd. under section 140 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 prior to the amending act, 54 of 1994, the amount of no fault liability payable in the case of death was rs. 25,000/-. it is not in ..... . in the case of new india assurance co. ltd. v. salapuriappa (supra), while dealing with change brought about by a new act which came into force from 1st july, 1989, whether section 140 of the new act has to be given retrospective effect in the sense that it has to be given effect in the case of claims arising out of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-11-2003
Reported in : 3(2005)ACC405
..... the tribunal as well as of the learned single judge of this court are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. learned counsel would submit that under section 140 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 ('the act' for brevity), the amount payable under 'no fault liability' is only rs. 50,000/- and that too it becomes payable only in ..... pass the order in very peculiar and special circumstances. he, however, fairly concedes that such an order could not be passed under section 140 of the act. but, the learned counsel would submit that section 151, civil procedure code can be invoked by the tribunal for rendering substantial justice and thus the orders under challenge in this appeal are ..... but, that cannot be a ground to grant the relief in violation of the statutory provisions.9. section 140 of the act could not be invoked under any circumstances. only tinder sub-section (2) of section 147, the liability under the act policy in respect of damage to the property of a third party the limit is fixed at rs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-22-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)ALT651
..... and it is fraudulent transaction with the help of the first respondent and the sale-deed covered by ex.a-4 executed subsequent to the date of attachment cannot be acted upon.12. the rights of the agreement-holder who entered into agreement with the judgment debtor prior to the date of attachment is subject to the right, title and interest .....
Tag this Judgment!