Andhra Pradesh Court December 1994 Judgments

Dr. V. Sadanand Rao and ors. Vs. the Secretary to the Government of A. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(2)ALT493

M.N. Rao, J.1. This judgment will dispose of the three writ petitions in view of the commonality of questions involved.2. All the petitioners in these three writ petitions belong to 'other Backward Classes (OBCs)' in whose favour, the government have reserved 25% of the seats in medical colleges at the diploma level, graduate level and post-graduate level. The percentage of reservation in favour of members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes is in the ratio of 14%, 4% and 25% respectively. The Backward Classes are sub-divided into four groups - A, B, C and D - and the reservation in favour of each of these groups is in the ratio of 7%, 10% 1% and 7% respectively.3. In the first instance, the government issued G.O.Ms.No.1793. Education, dated 23-9-1970 by which the 25% reservation in favour of the Backward Classes was confined to professional courses at graduate level only. Subsequently, five years later, by G.O.Ms.No.996, Employment and Social Welfare (P) Departm...

The Chief Election Commissioner of India Vs. Yanamala Ramakrishnudu, M ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(1)ALT28

S.S. Ahmed, C.J.1. It is stated by Mr. Sarat Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ petitioner, that he may be permitted to withdraw the main writ petition itself.2. The Writ Petition was filed by the writ petitioner (first respondent in writ appeal) for a direction by this Court to respondents 2 to 4 in the writ petition to follow and observe the model Code of Conduct for the guidance of the political parties and candidates, issued by the Election Commission of India, during the period of elections, which were scheduled to take place on 1st and 5th December, 1994. An application for interim relief was also filed. The learned single Judge, while declining to pass any interim order, observed that the model Code of Conduct issued by the Election Commission of India would be applicable with effect from the date on which the notification Under Section 15 of the Representation of People Act, is published.3. Since the learned single Judge had considered it not necessary to pa...

A. Krishna Rao and ors. Vs. Smt. Mohini and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(1)ALT376

ORDERA. Gopal Rao, J.1. Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 18026/94 is filed by the landlord, i.e., respondent in CR.P.No. 4221/94 to set aside the ex-parte order dated 2-11-1994, passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 4221/1994. Review C.M.P. 18095/94 is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased-original tenant/petitioners in C.R.P. No. 4221/94, to review the order, dated 2-11-1994, passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 4221/94. Both these applications are being disposed of by this order.2. For convenience sake, parties will be referred to in this order, according to their array in C.R.P. 4221/94.3. Petitioners are the legal representatives of the original tenant. Respondent/landlord filed R.C. No. 149/1984 before the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, against the original tenant. Mr. Lal Chand, for eviction from the suit schedule premises. On 20-7-1988, eviction was ordered. The Rent Controller, by his order dated 20-7-1988, gave two months' time to the tenant to vacate and hand-o...

Branch Post Master Vs. C. Manikayam and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The second opposite party in C.D. No. 117/93 District Forum, Chittoor i.e., Branch Post Master, Allamadugu Post Office is the appellant. The first respondent in this appeal is the complainant and the second respondent is the first opposite party i.e. The Superintendent, Department of Posts in the C.D. 117/93. 2. The respondent No. 1 herein filed a complaint stating that she was a student of Sri Venkateswara University and she applied for exemption of attendance to Registrar of Venkateswara University, Tirupathi. Alongwith the application to the Registrar, she sent all the required certificates and also the challan for Rs. 256/-. At the time when she applied, she was staying at Chinnaramapuram village, Bhimavaram post, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor Distt., and later she shifted temporarily to her parents house at Allamadugu post and village, Karvetinagar Mandal, Chittoor District. Since she did not receive any communication from the University, althoug...

Attuluri Krishna Murthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995CriLJ1653; II(1995)DMC366

1. The sole accused is Sessions Case No. 101 of 1990 is the appellant herein. He was tried in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam for a charge punishable under Section 304-B IPC. The second charge against the accused was under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge punishable under Section 304B IPC and therefore he proceeded to convict the accused and sentenced him to suffer RI for seven years. As the accused was sentenced for the substantive offence under Section 304-B IPC, no separate sentence was awarded under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The gravamen of the charges of the accused was that he married the deceased Umarani on 5-6-1983 and harassed her for getting more dowry from her parents and also driven her out of the house and on 13-8-1988 at 7.30 a.m. the deceased Umarani was found dead due to burns within seven yea...

S. Bharat Kumar Vs. Chief Election Commissioner of India and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)230; 1995CriLJ2608

Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This writ petition challenges the validity of G.O. Rt. No. 2796, Home (Courts. B) Department, dated 26-10-1994 whereby certain Police Officers, namely, the Superintendents of Police and Deputy Superintendents of Police, were conferred with powers under Section 108 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by appointing them as first class Executive Magistrates in order to exercise control over 'the sympathisers of left wing extremists group.' 2. The validity of this Government Order is challenged mainly on three grounds, namely, 1) the expression 'the sympathisers of left wing extremists groups' is highly vague, in that, there are aboslutely neither guidelines nor instructions muchless definition for the said expression so as to ascertain or identify the persons covered thereby, 2) conferment of such powers is a legislative act and therefore such a power is not within the realm of State Executive, and 3) conferment of the powers of the Executive Magistrate on the p...

M.V. Krishna Reddy Rep. by His Son and General Power of Attorney Holde ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(1)ALT161

ORDERP. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. This writ petition is filed questioning the arbitrary, illegal and unfair action of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in rejecting the tender of the petitioner which is the lowest on the alleged ground that the petitioner had not paid the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) through a demand draft. The petitioner is a registered special class contractor. The third respondent had invited sealed tenders on 22-6-1994 from contractors for construction of a bridge across the river 'Nagavali' in Srikakulam town limits at convent junction. The petitioner along with six others, including the 4th respondent has submitted their tenders. As per the tender notice the EMD should be paid along with the application for tender schedule. As per column '4' of the tender notice EMD of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh should be paid. However, as per condition 8(A) of the tender conditions, the lumpsum deposit holders who have a permanent deposit of Rs. 1 lakh with the Department have to pay only a sum o...

Central Wines Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (2000)161CTR(AP)373; [2000]244ITR307(AP)

ORDERM.N. Rao, J. 1. This is one of the rare cases concerning breach of procedural fairness on the part of the Tribunal, Hyderabad, the second respondent herein. The petitioner is a registered firm dealing in liquors. The question was whether certain income-tax deductions were admissible or not. Before the Division Bench of the Tribunal, consisting of two Members, namely, Sri K. S. Viswanatham and Sri K. Chathurvedi, the dispute was confined to two items, viz., (i) Rs. 13,58,390 and (ii) Rs. 3,50,644. The Division Bench, by an order of reference under s. 255(3) of the IT Act, referred the following question for decision by a Special Bench : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 3,50,644, when the assessee does not acknowledge any such liability to the ST Department and no statutory demand has been raised against the assessee by the Department ?' 2. From a perusal of the order of reference, it is clear that what was...

Spares Corporation Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1995]97STC645(AP)

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. These three tax revision cases and the writ petition are filled by the same person, who is an assessee under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, for short, 'the State Act'. 2. The assessee is carrying on business in machinery spares for fishing trawlers at Visakhapatnam, in the name and style of 'M/s. Spares Corporation'. For the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 the assessing authority assessed the disputed transaction to tax under the State Act by the assessment order passed on March 28, 1992. The assessee filed three appeals against the said orders of assessment before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kakinada. The appeals were dismissed, by common order, on March 24, 1993. The assessee then carried the matter in second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. By common order dated April 22, 1994, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. The said order gave rise to the abovesaid three tax revision...

Uunet India Limited and ors. Vs. I.C. Rao and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(1)ALT452; [1998]93CompCas41(AP)

B. Subhashan Reddy, J. 1. This company petition is filed under section 237(a)(ii) of the Companies Act, 1956, invoking this court's jurisdiction to declare that the affairs of the first petitioner-company, namely, Uunet India Ltd., are fit to be investigated by an inspector appointed by the Central Government. In support of the said relief, several allegations are made that the respondents, particularly, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have committed acts contrary to the company law as also the memorandum and articles of association of the first petitioner-company. 2. The first petitioner-company is hereinafter referred to as 'the company'. The company was firstly incorporated as a private limited company on May 25, 1990, and later on a resolution was passed on May 3, 1993, to convert the same into a public limited company and it was incorporated as a public limited company with effect from November 25, 1993. The authorised capital which was hitherto Rs. 10 lakhs was raised to Rs. 1 crore. Pe...