Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
G. Nagaraju Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2000
Reported in: II(2000)ACC635; 2000(3)ALD593
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. The petitioners who are transport operators and whose vehicles were seized by the checking Officers for non production of certain documents and for alleged contraventions of law in purported exercise of power under Section 8 of APMV Taxation Act and Section 207 of Motor Vehicles Act, have filed these writ petitions questioning the vires of Rule 448-B of AP MV Rules and for a 'consequential order' to direct the respondents to release the vehicles forthwith. This Court at the stage of admission of the writ petitions granted interim directions to release the vehicles subject to the condition of payment of Rs.5,000/- or Rs.3,500/- and furnishing an undertaking not to alienate the vehicle. On compliance with those conditions, the petitioners got release of the vehicles. Thus, no further relief need be granted to the petitioners. However, as the validity of Rule 448-B has been assailed and that question ought to be resolved at the earliest in the interest of ...
Hicel Pharma Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD(Cri)895; 2000CriLJ2566
ORDERVaman Rao, J 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Cr.P.C') seeks quashing of the proceedings in Crime No. 158 of 1999 registered at Patancheru Police Station, District Medak in which the petitioners/accused are accused of offence under Sections 409, 417 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.'). It appears that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have filed a private complaint in the Court of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for investigation which is now said to be pending. The crucial allegations as found in the complaint are as follows :-2. The complainant, who is a dealer and supplier of raw materials for Pharmaceutical Industries supplied certain material to Accused No. 1 - Company in which accused Nos. 2 and 3 are said to be the Directors. It appears that these goods were supplied on credit some time in ...
K. Narahari Vs. U. Suresh Kumar and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC92; 2001ACJ1383; 2000(3)ALD745; 2000(3)ALT627
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (DistrictJudge), Nalgonda in OP No.802 of 1992 dated 24-12-1994.2. The claimant who is a practising advocate met with an accident while he was proceeding along with his friend in Maruthi car Bearing No.A.P. 28-A 6708 from Hyderabad to Khammam on 15-5-1992 at 2-00 p.m., near Manikyalammagudem. According to the claimant, the lorry Bearing No.APH 7272 came in opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the car resulting injuries to the claimant herein and the petitioner in OP No.803 of 1992. The police, Narketpalli registered a case in Cr.No.65 of 1992 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the lorry. The lorry was insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company. The petitioner sustained multiple injuries and fractures all over the body. The petitioner was treated as in-patient in Osmania General...
R.V. Ram Bhupal Prasad Vs. Dodda Ranga Rao and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD273; 2000(3)ALT610
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge made in WP No.14048 of 1998 dated 1-3-1999.2. Before proceeding with the case, it is necessary to know the previous history of the case.3. When the matter came up for hearing keeping in view the position in which the parties were placed this Court had suggested for a compromise. Accordingly, the Counsel for the parties took time for compromise and the matter was adourned. Subsequently, the compromise petition was drafted and produced before the Court, but the same was not signed by the parties. The Counsel appearing for the respondent landlord then submitted to the Court that the respondent landlord could not come to the Court and as soon as his signature is obtained, the Court can proceed with the recording of the compromise. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned from time to time to facilitate the respondent landlord and his Counsel to sign the compromise petition. But, to the sur...
K. Neelakanta Rao and Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD540; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)751; 2001(74)ECC554; 2000(122)ELT7(AP)
ORDER1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC seeks stay of trial in CC No.8 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad in which the petitioners arc accused of contravention of offences under Sections 112A and 111 of the Customs Act punishable under Section 135 of the Act pending adjudication of the proceedings in OR No.2 of 1998 (ADGN) customs dated 11/12-2-1998 pending before the Commissioner, Customs and Excise, Hyderabad.2. The facts germane to this case may be stated briefly as follows:Al to A3 in the case are said to have carried gold from Sharjah to Hyderabad. According to the Customs Authorities, as it was not declared and as after its disclosure the duty in foreign exchange was not paid in respect of the said gold, it was liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The petitioners herein who are accused Nos.4 and 5 are said to have abetted the offence committed by Al to A3 inasmuch as they were in unauthorised possession ...
K. Thyagaraj, Md, Apitl, Hyd. and Others Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Hy ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD532
ORDER1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC seeks quashing of the proceedings in CC No.1832 of 1998 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in which the petitioners are said to have committed various offences under Section 58-B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (for short 'the Act'). Inasmuch a1- the offences are said to have been committed by A1 company, the other accused are prosecuted for the said offences in view of Section 58-C of the Act.2. The principal ground on which the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Milind Gokhle, seeks quashing of these proceedings is that the learned Magistrate, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has not applied his mind before taking cognizance of the offences in question. In support of his contention, he cites a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, : 1992CriLJ2916 , in which the Supreme Court held that the Court should be c...
Hemalatha Gargya Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P. - Ii and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALT105; (2000)162CTR(AP)61; [2000]244ITR143(AP); [2000]110TAXMAN429(AP)
ORDERPVR, J. 1. The petitioner questions the communication dated 29.02.2000 sent by the first respondent that the tax demanded having not been made within the time limit of three months specified under Section 67(1) of Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, the declaration filed by her is treated as non est and lodged. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the first respondent in refusing to condone the delay of 16 days in paying the tax is illegal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the last date for filing the declaration was upto 31.12.1997. The assessee filed her declaration on 16.12.1997. Thus, if the petitioner had filed the declaration on 31.12.1997 instead of 16.12.1997, the tax payment made on 31.03.1998 would have been within the time. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that it is a fit case to extend the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner. The learned counsel relies on the decisions of Punjab and Haryana High Court in SMT.L...
K. Thyagaraj Vs. Reserve Bank of India
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD(Cri)759; [2001]107CompCas479(AP)
Rao, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Act') seeks quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 1832 of 1998 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, in which the petitioners are said to have committed various offences under Section 58B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Inasmuch as the offences are said to have been committed by A-1 company, the other accused are prosecuted for the said offences in view of Section 58C of the RBI Act.2. The principal ground on which the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Milind Gokhle, seeks quashing of these proceedings is that the learned magistrate, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, has not applied his mind before taking cognizance of the offences in question. In support of his contention, he cites a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha : 1992CriLJ2916 , in which the Supreme Court hel...
Y. Siva Sankar Reddy and ors. Vs. Additional Regional Transport Office ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC40; 2000(3)ALT616
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The petitioners seek a declaration that the action of the respondent in not allowing them to make alterations in their 10-wheeler vehicles bearing Registration Nos. (1) AP 21U 3427 II.AP21U 4237 (2) AP21U 3633 (3) AP21U 4456 as 6-wheeler vehicles with gross vehicle weight at 16,200 Kgs. with overall length of chassis of 7,380 m.m. wheel base 4,225 m.m. rear overhand 1970 m.m. and tyre size 10 x 20 by entering the same in the certificate of registration forthwith is arbitrary.2. The petitioners allege that unable to run 10-wheeler vehicles due to the commercial situation they made applications to the respondent Under Section 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') seeking permission for alteration of the vehicles and that the said applications were rejected at the threshold itself. It is stated by the petitioners that their applications were rejected on the ground that the proposed alterations would not come within Section 52 of ...
Life Line Devices Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: [2000]119STC52(AP)
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The petitioner prays for a writ to declare the action of the second respondent (impleaded by order dated February 16, 2000 in W.P.M.P. No. 2233 of 2000) in collecting the cheques for a sum of Rs. 13,12,563 towards the tax and compounding fee on the spot without making an assessment or demand as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and Article 265 of the Constitution and seeks a direction to the respondents not to present the cheques for Rs. 2,50,000 each and also to direct refund of Rs. 3,12,563 already encashed against cheque Nos. 601241 and 601245. The petitioner claims to be a registered dealer. They are dealing in life saving cardiology equipment. The petitioner has a branch at Calcutta. There was a surprise inspection by the staff of Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Office on October 22,1999. On that day, a statement was recorded from the managing partner of the petitioner-firm in which he stated that at the ti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »