Andhra Pradesh Court June 1986 Judgments
Sri Ambuja Petro Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC343(AP)
P.A. Choudary, J. 1. The petitioner is a public limited company manufacturing certain chemicals which are used as raw material by other industrial units. It is situated in Patancheru in Medak district and started commercial production on 18th May, 1982. It says that the total value of its assets at the relevant time, which is 30th June, 1982, was Rs. 11,55,52,750 and also claims that it employs 150 persons and pays sales tax of Rs. 40,00,000 per annum. In this writ petition, it seeks a mandamus from this Court to the State of Andhra Pradesh and other respondents to sanction interest-free sales tax loan as per the terms and conditions of G.O. Ms. No. 224, Industries Department, dated 9th March, 1976, as extended by G.O. Ms. No. 736 dated 28th December, 1981. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the abovementioned Orders of the Government issued from time to time envisage the grant of certain monetary incentives to such of those entrepreneurs who set up their industries in backward area...
Tag this Judgment!Venkateswara Rice and Flour Mill Vs. Union Bank of India and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-1986
Reported in: [1988]63CompCas483(AP)
Rama Swamy, J.1. The twin writ petitions, though filed for different reliefs, since common questions of fact and law arise for adjudication between the same parties, can be disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner, a partnership firm, was registered as a small scale industry and claims to be a sick unit and needs nursing by the inflow of additional finances to restore its normalcy. Therefore, it seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to convert the outstanding liability in the relevant accounts into a long-term loan, to evolve a scheme rescheduling the repayment in tune with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India to help sick units under a nursing programme and to direct not to deduct 15% and 50% of the sale amounts derived by the petitioner by sale of levy and non-levy rice respectively and for other reliefs. 2. The material facts averred are as follows : Due to frequent change in the policy of the Government to give quota of levy rice to the Central Go...
Tag this Judgment!Yerrabhothula Krishna Murthy and ors. Vs. Addepalli Subba Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-1986
Reported in: AIR1988AP193
1. The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants. The respondent laid action for ejectment of the appellants from the suit premises of 475 Sq. yards situate in Kothapeta area of Guntur Municipal town and for recovery of arrears of rent and future profits. One D. Raghuram was the original owner of the property and the respondent had purchased the demised premises under Ex. A-1 sale deed dt. 4-8-1977, thereby the respondent became the owner of the property. Subsequently a notice Ex. A-4 dt. 26-9-1977 determining the tenancy of the appellants was issued to the appellants to quit the suit premises. It is not in dispute that the Second appellant received the notice and the first appellant evaded receipt of the notice. Since the appellants did not deliver possession. the respondent initiated the action. The defence set up by the appellants is that Ex. A-4 notice is not valid in law in terms of S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short 'the Act') and therefore, the suit is liable to ...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Krishna Murthy Vs. P.S. Umadevi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-1986
Reported in: AIR1987AP237
ORDER1. The petitioner is the husband. The respondent filed an application under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for payment of alimony pendente lite. The trial Court awarded a sum of Rs. 300/- to the respondent and Rs. 150/- towards maintenance of the daughter. Against this order, the Revision Petition has been filed.2. The petitioner is resisting this order mainly on the vires of S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act 25 of 1955) for short 'the Act'. It is contended that under Sec. 36 of the Divorce Act maximum amount that could be granted is only 1/5th of the husband's average net income for the three years next preceding the date of the order, whereas under Sec. 24 of the Act the liability has been kept very vague. Therefore, it is violative of Art. 14 read with Art. 44 of the Constitution under common civil Code. It is further contended that the liability under the Divorce Act would subsist till the date of confirmation by the appellate Court, whereras under the Act it is liable t...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramchandra Vs. M.C. Jagadhodhara Gupta and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-11-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1820
ORDERRamaswamy, J.1. The petitioner, an Assistant Public Prosecutor, Gr. II, is assailing the validity of the appointment of the first respondent in the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 112, Law Department, dt. April 13, 1984 as Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Additional Sessions' Court at Ananthapur as illegal and void and to declare the petitioner as having been appointed to the said post.2. The facts are not in dispute. Though the petitioner had his practice as an advocate for some time, on Nov. 1, 1965 he was appointed as Asst. Public Prosecutor Grade II of the General Subordinate Services under the State and he is a regular Government servant. Ever since, he has been the Prosecuting Officer. When a vacancy to the office of the Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ananthapur has arisen there is long chequered career for its filling up. It is needless to dilate with the entire details but suffice it to state that the District Magistrate, Ananthapur in consultation with the Sessions Judge, Ananthapur ultima...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›