Andhra Pradesh Court March 1999 Judgments

Grag MartIn Distillery Private Ltd. Tilamol Vs. State of A.P. and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD631; 1999(2)ALT704

ORDER1. In both these writ petitions initially the vires of clause 8 of G.O. Ms. No.166, Revenue (Excise-11) Department, dated 18-3-1998 where under 1st respondent advised the 2nd respondent, the Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited (for short 'the Corporation') to procure A, B and C categories of liquor (hereinafter referred as 'cheap liquor) from the distilleries located within the State as sufficient production capacity for this liquor exists within the State to the total exclusion of distilleries located outside the State on various grounds.2. The brief and undisputed facts of this case are that the distilleries owned by Crag Martin Distilleries Private Limited, petitioner in WP No.7996/98 and Swan Distillers Private Limited, petitioner in WP No.8338/98 are located in Goa and they are involved in manufacturing of Indian liquors. The liquor that is being manufactured is being despatched for sale all over the country and in fact they participated in the tenders invited by the...

Ambica Chemicals Products, Eluru Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Eluru and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD651; 1999(2)ALT688

ORDERA.S. Bhate, J.1. Petitioner-firm manufacturers 'Agarbathies'. For purpose of Sales Tax assessment under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') the authorities assessed the petitioner-firm for assessment year 1985-86 by order dated 15-2-1990. 'Agarbathies' were classified as 'perfumes' which falls in Entry No.36 of the First Schedule and accordingly was subjected to tax at the rate of 10%. The tax was levied accordingly and for belated payment of tax interest was also levied and recovered from the petitioner. Even for 1986-87 tax was levied at 10% on similarreasoning. Interest was also levied and recovered form the petitioner-firm for delayed payment of tax in 1990. The petitioner challenged the assessment order before this Court in writ petitions but the challenge failed when the writ petitions were dismissed on 29-9-1989. The petitioner went to Supreme Court against the said order. The petitioner also carried his appeal under the Act b...

M.V. Chalapathi and Another Vs. Managing Director, Apsrtc, Musheerabad ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD644; 1999(4)ALT763

ORDERM.S. Liberhan, CJ1. This appeal arises out of an order of the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants on the ground of ladies.2. The appellants - writ petitioners were employed in the respondents -Corporations as casual conductors on 19-12-1983 and 3-4-1984. By order dated 8-7-1985, the services of the appellants were regularised with effect from 6-4-1985. The appellants filed the writ petition seeking a direction that their services should be regularised with effect from 19-12-1983 and 3-4-1984 respectively instead of 6-4-1985. The prayer was rejected by the learned single Judge on the ground of laches. The learned single Judge observed that the appellants never made any representation and if their claim is allowed, it will unsettle the settled tilings.3. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the respondents - Corporation themselves having conceded before this Court in Writ Petition No.26111 of 1998 with respect to similarly situated ...

V. Sreeamulu Vs. Sub-registrar, Tirupati and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD174; 1999(3)ALT235

ORDER1. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject land was assigned to him by issuing DKT patta by the then Tahsildar of Puttur Taluq on 23-5-1986 in his capacity as an ex-serviceman; he wanted to alienate the subject land to meet certain exigencies in the family and when lie attempted to present the instrument of sale before the 1st respondent on 20-10-1998, the 1st respondent refused to receive the same without assigning any reason. So alleging, the writ petition is filed seeking intervention of this Court.2. In response to rule nisi, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue has obtained the instructions and on the basis of the instructions would submit that according to the 1st respondent, the petitioner did not present the instrument on 20-10-1998. I do not think it necessary for the Court to go into this factual controversy of whether the petitioner attempted to submit the instrument ofsale on 20-10-1998 or not. The materials placed before the Court make the following fa...

Ch. Kankaiah Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Warangal

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD733; 1999(4)ALT90

ORDERM.S. Liberhan, CJ.1. These writ petitions are disposed of by common order as common questions of law on para muteria facts have been raised.2. Facts are taken from Writ Petition No.35446 of 1998. The petitioner was the owner of the vehicle on 11-11-1998 with idle contract carriage permit, effective within 2 K.Ms., from the residential address of the owner. One of the conditions of permit is that the vehicle shall be parked at such stands as may be determined by the Transport Authority when it is not engaged and it shall be available for hire thereat. Reference be made to Rule 185(1)(e)(iii) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Andlira Rules')- It would remain within 2 K.Ms. Statutory tax on such permit at the rate of Rs.10/- per seat per quarter was levied. The owner is required to take a special permit for operation after giving the terms of contract and the names of the passengers to the Authority concerned.3. The petitioner's vehicle was not f...

Anima Prava Roy Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD71; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)604

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-5-1993 in CC No.6 of 1993 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge,Vizianagaram in which the appel!ant/A6 along with five others have been convicted for the offences under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and the appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.l lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. While A1 to A5 were convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts relating to this appeal may be stated briefly as follows :3. The Assistant Excise Superintendent, Vizianagaram (PW2) received information on the intervening night of 14/ 15-1-1993 at about 4 a.m. that ganja was being transported in a car. He informed PW4, the Excise Inspector, Bobbili and both of them a...

Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P.-iii, Hyderabad Vs. Tirumalai Traders, ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD578; [1999]238ITR661(AP)

ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. In this reference case, the following questions have been referred by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this Court, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh-III:'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the ITAT should have held that since the Agreement dated 1-4-1980 was entered into not for doing business but only to facilitate transfer of the house properly held by the firm formed under -the deed of partnership dated 8-6-1979 to the Limited Company with a view to avoid payment of capital gains tax, the assessec is not entitled to registration under Section 185(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961; for the assessment year 1981-82?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT should have observed that the so called new firm which came into existence on 1-4-1980 had not carried on any business either during the year of account or in the subsequent accounting year and henc...

Armour Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALD24; 1999(2)ALT693

ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. The WritAppeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed assailing the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3362 of 1998 dated 31-07-1998.2. Appellant herein is the petitioner in the said Writ Petition No. 3362 of 1998 which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing notification inviting tenders only from the Public Sector Undertakings tor supply of antibiotics is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and a further direction to the respondents to allow the petitionercompany and other companies to participate in the tenders for the supply of antibiotics to the respondents.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in the Writ Petition No. 3362 of 1998.4. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner-company is that it was incorporated as a private limited co...

Smt. Anima Prava Roy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999CriLJ2564

Vaman Rao, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-5-1993 in C.C.No. 6 of 1993 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Vizianagaram in which the appellant/A6 along with five others have been convicted for the offences under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and the appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, while A1 to A5 were convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts relating to this appeal may be stated briefly as follows:The Assistant Excise Superintendent, Vizianagarm (P.W. 2) received information on the intervening night of 14/15-1-1993 at about 4 a.m. that ganja was being transported in a car. He informed P.W. 4, the Excise Inspector, Bobbili and b...

Baba Constructions and Another Vs. Ashok Korada and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 in O.P. Nos. 947 and 1067 of 1995, who are common, have filed these appeals questioning the common order of the Hyderabad District Forum-I dated 30.11.1998 partly allowing the same and directing them to complete the left over/unfinished works mentioned in para 19 of the order and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to each of the complainants and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs to each of the complainants within three months from today. The complaints as against opposite party No. 3 were dismissed without costs. The complainants in the O.Ps. are the respondents before us. 2. The question involved in these appeals is in a short compass and can be resolved without much argumentation in view of the clear provisions in the agreements entered into between the complainants and the appellants on the one hand, and the owner of the premises on the other. 3. The 1st appellant is a firm promoted by the 2nd appellant and is engaged in apar...