Andhra Pradesh Court January 1999 Judgments

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Itc Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd., Sarpak ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD31; 1999(1)ALT704

ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J 1. Petitioner is the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The firstrespondent is M/s. ITC Bhadrachalam Paperboards Limited, Sarapaka, Khammam District. The second respondent is Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The third and fourth respondents being Additional Commissioner (CT) & Joint Commissioner (Legal), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the Commercial Tax Officer, Kothagudem, respectively.2. The State of Andhra Pradesh has chosen to challenge the orders of the Additional Commissioner (CT) & Joint Commissioner (Legal) - third respondent herein, dated 23-11-1992 as confirmed by the second respondent dated 27-11-1993 through which orders a refund of more than Rs.3.70 crores was ordered to be paid to the first respondent.3. Few facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are set out as under:The first respondent - M/s. ITC B...

N.V. Narasimha Rao Vs. Somepalli Sambaiah and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD221

1. This is an application under Section 87 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 read with Order 6 Rule 16 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for striking out the pleadings and dismissing the Election Petition No.12 of 1995, inter alia, on the ground that the affidavit accompanying the election petition has not been sworn before the Magistrate oi I Class or Notary or Commissioner of Oaths as prescribed under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules in Form No.25 read with Section 81(3) of the R.P. Act, 1951 and the copy of the affidavit served on the petitioner does not contain proper attestation and the allegations of corrupt practices made in Paras 7 to 10 suffer from material irregularity and are vague.2. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner had contested the X Legislative Assembly Elections from 110 Chilakaluripet assembly segment on behalf of the Indian National Congress (I) Party with the election symbol 'Hand' while the first respondent (petitioner ...

Dadi Narsi Reddy Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD378; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)515; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)424; 1999CriLJ2055

ORDERVaman Rao, J 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, dated 27-5-1997 rendered in SC No.322 of 1995, under which while acquitting A2 to A13 of various charges framed against them the appellant-A1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 323, IPC directing both the sentences to run concurrently.2. The facts relating to this appeal may be stated briefly as follows :A1 is the son of PW2 and step son of the deceased. A2 is the wife of Al, All are residents of Gujja village. There have been disputes between PW2, the falher of Al, who has married (he deceased as second wife, and his children through her including PW1, the son, in regard to properties of the family. It ...

Galaveli Venkateswara Rao and Another Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD196; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)443; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)385; II(1999)DMC447

ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J 1. A1 and A2 in Sessions Case No.218 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, are the appellants before us. Originally three accused were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge i.e., A1 and A2 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC, and A1 and A3 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. The trial Court after full trial and considering the entire material on record found Al guilty and A2 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC. Accordingly, A1 was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer imprisonment for a period one month, and acquitted A2 for the said offence. Further , the trial Court found Al and A2 guilty, and A3 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. Accordingly, A1 and A2 were convicted and senten...

Sanjay Alloys (P) Ltd., Moram, Chittoor Dist. Vs. Government of A.P. a ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALD31; 1999(1)ALT733

ORDER1. This wit petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting the 25% rebate in power tariff to the petitioner for the initial three years as highly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently to direct the respondents to grant 25% rebate to the petitioner for the initial three years with effect from 8-12-1989 i.e., the date of going into commercial production pursuant to G.O. Ms. No.654, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 13-3-1976 and B.P. Ms. No.691 (Commercial), dated 10-8-1976 of the 2nd respondent and to pass such other orders in the circumstances of the case.2. The brief facts which require to be stated for disposal of this writ petition are as follows :The petitioner is a S.S.I. Unit engaged in the manufacture of Corrosion Resistant Castings, Heat Resistant Castings, Steel Alloy Casiings and Alloy Iron Castings etc. The petitioner was granted provisional S.S.I, registration for establishing the industry i...

Galaveli Venkateswara Rao (A.1) and anr. Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999CriLJ4329

Motilal B. Naik, J.1. A. 1 and A. 2 in Sessions Case No. 218 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, are the appellants before us. Originally three accused were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge i.e. A. 1 and A. 2 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and A. 1 and A. 3 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C. The trial Court after full trial and considering the entire material on record found A. guilty and A. 2 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A, I.P.C. Accordingly, A. 1 was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month and acquitted A.2 for the said offence. Further, the trial Court found A. 1 and A.2 guilty and A.3 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Accordingly, A. 1 and A.2 were ...

Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority Vs. P. Pothur ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. We do not find any ground for interfering with the order of the Vizianagaram District Forum dated 27.5.1998 in O.P. No. 189/1995 questioned by the opposite part) in that O.P. The complainant in the O.P. is the respondent before us. 2. The facts are simple and the conclusion cannot be otherwise than what the District Forum held. The complainant applied for a plot in Baba Metta Phase II lay out and he was allotted a plot of an extent of 292 square yards at Rs. 72/- per square yard as per the original proceedings of allotment dated 11.3.1991. However, the complainant examined the plot and he found it not suitable for constructing a house and he wanted change of the plot. On the representation of the complainant, the appellant got the plot examined and found that it was not suitable for construction of house. The District Forum on an examination of the material before it held as follows : On the representation of the petitioner the respondent has examined the...

Muvvala Ramachandra Rao and Another Vs. Kuricheti Ravi and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD101; 1999(3)ALT136

1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali in AS No.25 of 1997 confirming the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Tenali in EA No.80 of 1997 in EP 46 of 1997, dated 26-3-1997, whereby the application of the appellants under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.2. It is no longer in dispute before me that the first respondent had filed a suit in OS No.255 of 1995 against the second respondent for money decree and the disputed property had been attached before Judgment on 4-8-1995. The first respondent had sent a notice to the appellants after the suit has been decreed intimating about the order of attachment as also of the passing of the money decree. Thereafter, the appellants had filed a suit on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenali, in OS 100 of 1995 for specific performance of the contract dated 14-11-1994 against both the respondents and the suit is p...

M. Rajender Vs. State of A.P. and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALD40; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)326; 1999(1)ALT777; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)101

ORDER1. Heard the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a partner of a firm and the complaint itself does not disclose that any notice was given to him before the proceedings were started against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Essentially, it is a question of fact whether a notice was served on the accused or not. Even otherwise, if it is presumed that no notice had been given to the present petitioner who is accused No.2 and only a notice had been given to the firm of which admittedly he is a partner, I am of the view that was sufficient compliance of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused who is the petitioner before this Court is a partner of firm which issued the cheque which is subject matter of the complaint and a notice was given to the firm under Section 138 of the Act. The present petilioner who is accused No.2 is only arrayed as an accused by virtue of the provision of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in my...

Manager, Syndicate Bank Vs. T. Brahmananda Kumar and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

K. Ranga Rao, Member: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.2.1997 passed by the Prakasam District Forum at Ongole whereby it directed the Manager, Syndicate Bank, Tangutur, Prakasam District (opposite party No. 2) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 18%per annum from the date of the order till the date of payment and also costs of Rs. 300/-, the 2nd opposite party in the said OP preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the respondent herein who is the complainant before the District Forum was that he being an unemployed graduate approached the General Manager, The District Industries Centre, Ongole (opposite party No. 1) for financial assistance to start some supply company to eke out his livelihood, that he was selected by the District Industries Centre under Prime Ministers Rozgar Yojana Scheme and was directed to approach the 2nd opposite party- Bank for a loan of Rs. 65,000/-, that accordingly he made an application to the 2nd opposite party for sanction of ...