Andhra Pradesh Court October 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kvaerner Cementation India Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2000
Reported in: [2001]122STC419(AP)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner-company has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned garnishee notice dated May 31, 2000 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kurupam Market, Visakhapatnam. We are informed that in pursuance of the interim order of this Court dated August 8, 2000 in W.P.M.P. No. 16721 of 2000 and in pursuance of the further direction issued by us on September 13, 2000, the second respondent paid the outstanding dues to the petitioner-company. The impugned garnishee notice issued under Section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act ('the Act', for brevity), on the face of it, is incompetent having due regard to the clear and unambiguous language employed in Sub-section (1) of Section 17 read with Sub-section (5A) of Section 17 of the Act. Even accepting the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes that in the light of Sub-section (5A) of Section 17 of the Act, recovery of outstanding dues could be eff...
Chief Engineer/Construction, South Central Railway, Sec'bad and anothe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALD62; 2000(6)ALT774
ORDER1. These two OPs., are filed for setting aside the awards dated 10-8-1999 passed by the arbitrator Sri Justice T.N.C. Rangarajan, a former Judge of this Court. The parties are common to both these OPs., the first respondent was awarded two contracts by the petitioners herein. (The details of which may not be necessary at this stage). Suffice to state that with regard to both the contracts, the first respondent herein had earlier approached this Court for the appointment of an arbitrator by Arbitration Application Nos.11 and 8 of 1988 and this Court by a common order dated 13-3-1999 appointed the second respondent as an arbitrator in both the matters. Pursuant to the said orders of this Court, the second respondent herein entered upon the arbitration and passed awards vide his letter dated TNCRJ/AC 26 dated 10-8-1999.2. These two petitioners are filed with a prayer to set aside the above-referred award passed by the second respondent for various grounds indicated in the respective ...
Ponnaboyina Narasimham and Others Vs. Government of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALD44; 2000(6)ALT596
ORDER1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a declaration that the action of the respondents in taking steps to acquire the lands of the petitioners to construct a Water Course without following the procedure contemplated under Andhra pradesh Irrigation (Construction and Maintenance of Water Courses) Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') and Rules made thereunder is illegal and for appropriate direction for stopping the action of the respondents in that regard. 2. The plea of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent has taken steps for acquiring the lands for constructing certainirrigation works in contravention of the provisions of the said Act. Counters have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. It is specifically stated in the counters and it has been assured by the learned Government Pleader concerned that the lands sought to be acquired are for the purpose of construction of minor irrigation tanks and not for construction of irrigation channels. A ...
Trichur Cotton Mills Ltd. and Another Vs. Devarasetty Cotton and Anoth ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD732; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)5; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)34
ORDER1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC seeks to quash the proceedings in CC No.136 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu, in which the petitioners herein are sought to be prosecuted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that inasmuch as the offence is said to have been committed by the 1st petitioner-Company, there are no sufficient allegations in thecomplaint to fasten the criminal liability on the 2nd petitioner (A2) to bring the matter within the purview of Section 141 of the said Act. As there is no specific allegation in the complaint that the 2nd petitioner is incharge of and responsible to the business of the Company, it is argued that in the absence of such an allegation, criminal liability cannot be attributed to the 2nd petitioner for the offence said to have been committed by the Company, accused No.1 herein.3. It is true that there is no specific ...
Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Hyd. and Others ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD713; 2000(6)ALT195; 2001(74)ECC319; 2002(141)ELT51(AP)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J. 1. Heard the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Government of India. When the writ petition was heard, the learned Standing Counsel for Government of India had vehemently argued that the Customs authorities were under no obligation to reimburse the storage and demurrage charges. On a careful consideration and necessary reflection and having due regard to the settled position in law, we rejected that contention and we observed as under:'....... Customs authorities are statutory/public authorities and the reasonableness of their actions is required to be tested on the touchstone of postulates of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the stand taken by the learned senior Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for respondents 1 to 3 Customs authorities in that regard is not tenable'.2. Neverthless, the learned Standing Counsel for Government of India would contend before us that the functions di...
Apsrtc and ors. Vs. M. Narasaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ858AP
M.S. Liberhan, CJ.1. This appeal by the appellants-Corporation arises out of an order dated June 20, 2000 of the learned single Judge inter alia allowing the writ petition filed by the workman and directing the Corporation to pay the arrears of his salary after fixation of pay by granting notional increments in terms of the award passed by the Labour Court in favour of the respondent-workman.2. The facts are not in dispute, The respondent-workman was removed from service on June 17, 1981 and he was reinstated in service in the month of January, 1989 subsequent to an award dated December 17, 1988 of the Labour Court directing the Corporation to reinstate workman into service within thirty days from December 6, 1988. However, as the records are not available, the Corporation could not fix his pay. Finally, the Corporation fixed his pay in January, 1994.3. The workman preferred a writ petition in the year 1997 seeking the benefit of fixation of notional increments during the period of rem...
Trichur Cotton Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Devarasetty Cotton and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas168(AP)
Vaman Rao, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeks to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 136 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu, in which the petitioners herein are sought to be prosecuted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. /2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that inasmuch as the offence is said to have been committed by the first petitioner-company, there are no sufficient allegations in the complaint to fasten the criminal liability on the second petitioner (A-2) to bring the matter within the purview of Section 141 of the said Act. As there is no specific allegation in the complaint that the second petitioner is in charge of and responsible for the business of the company, it is argued that in the absence of such an allegation, criminal liability cannot be attributed to the second petitioner for the offence said to have been committed by the compan...
S. Bharat Kumar and Others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD217; 2000(6)ALT1
ORDER1. In recent times, the wind of reform which aims at paving the way for a healthy, dynamic, financially viable and self-sustained growth of the power sector to meet the ever increasing demand for electricity from various categories of customers on an equitable basis both in terms of quality and quantity as well as of reasonable tariff so as to facilitate a rapid growth of the Nation's economy is blowing in almost all the States in India. Sometimes, as in the case of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the blowing of the reform wind was very hard, strong and hurting too against certain hitherto protected and favoured categories of consumers of electricity like agriculturists and domestic consumers, irrespective of thefact whether it is justified or not. This resulted in perceived shock and dismay and spontaneously generated persistent and percurrent protests, rallies, agitations ending, at times, with unpardonable violence denounced with abomination and righteous indignation by the Father...
Dr. Kollam Chandrasekhar Vs. Dr. Kollam Padmalatha
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD432; 2000(6)ALT94
ORDER1. The petitioners in both the transfer applications being wife and husband are seeking transfer of the case of the other spouse to the file of the Court where the case filed by them is pending. They can be disposed of by a common order. Before considering their request, the factual background of this case has to be looked into.2. Both the parties are doctors and they were married in the year 1995 at Kakinada, and during the wedlock the petitioner in Tr. CMP No.69 of 1999 gave birth to a female child and she is aged about three years. It is seen that the marriage is not a happy one and the petitioner in Tr.CMP No.94 of 1999 i.e., the husband wants to get rid of the wife by contending that this wife is suffering from Schizophrenia. While the husband filed OP No.285 of 1998 on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad, seeking divorce on the ground that his wife is suffering from Schizopherenia under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife filed OP No.1 of 1999 on the file o...
Andhra Cements Limited, Hyd. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Othe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD404; 2000(6)ALT165
ORDERM.S. Liberhan, C.J. 1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner')impugned the order dated 14-7-1999 whereby its application for grant of prospecting licence for limestone in the areas in villages Kesavapalli, Alugupadu, Shankarapuram and Gokuiapadu was rejected by the first respondent. The petitioner sought for the directions to the respondent to issue prospecting licence for mining lease.2. The petitioner is a public limited company claiming to be in the field of manufacturing cement. In the year 1987 the petitioner had applied for prospecting licence in respect of limestone in the areas in Kesavapalli, Alugumallipadu, Sankarapuram and Gognlapadu villages of Guntur District. It proclaimed the potentiality of manufacturing cement to the tune of 1.1 million tonnes per annum. Prior to 1990 the Company became sick. It applied to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'BIFR') in the year 1990 for rehabilitation under the Sick...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »