Andhra Pradesh Court November 2001 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.
Dev (A-4) Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas607(AP); 2002CriLJ4770
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J. 1. These criminal petitions have been filed by the same person Mr. Dev, who is A-4 in C.C. Nos. 475,544 and 476 of 1999 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad, to quash the proceedings in the said C.Cs.2. On the complaints filed by the 2nd respondent herein (complainant) under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') against respondents 3 to 5 (A-1 to A-3) and the petitioner herein (A-4), the charge against the accused under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act has been taken into cognizance and the C.Cs. are pending for enquiry.3. It is the caseof the petitioner (A-4) that he is only the Accountant of the 3rd respondent-Company (A-4); and respondents 4 and 5 (A-2 and A-3) are Managing Director and Director of the 3rd respondent-Company respectively; and cheques have been signed by the 4th respondent (A-2) in his capacity as the Managing Director of the 3rd respondent-Company; and there is no ...
Vif Airways Ltd. and anr. Vs. Aishu Finance Ltd. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD(Cri)941; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)102
Tamada Gopala Krishna, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner (A-2) to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 72 of 1997 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad.2. According to the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein, the 1st respondent is finance company. A-1 is a registered company incorporated under the Companies Act of which A-2 i.e., the petitioner herein is the Chairman and Managing Director and A-3 to A-9 are the business Directors. They have regular business transactions.3. While so, as on 12.6.1996, A-1-company was due an amount of about Rs. 32 lakhs and in discharge of that liability, it issued three cheques bearing Nos. 024725 dated 27.6.1996 for an amount of Rs. 12,37,7567/-, 024726 dated 1.8.1996 for an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs and 024727 dated 1.9.1996 for an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. When the cheque bearing No. 024725 dated 27.6.1996 was presented by the 1st respondent-company through its...
Collector and District Magistrate and anr. Vs. M. Deena Raju
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT776
S.R. Nayak, J.1. A short question that arises for decision in this writ petition is whether the respondent herein is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-rule (14) of Rule 3 of A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Ministerial Service Rules'). This question arises in the following factual background.2. The respondent herein, Mr. Deena Raju, was initially appointed as Village Servant during the year 1982 under A.P. (Andhra Area) Village Officers Service Rules, 1969 (for short, the Village Officers Service Rules') on part-time basis. When he was serving as such, in the year 1991 he was appointed to the post of Attender by way of recruitment by transfer with effect' from 26-3-1991. At the time of his appointment as Attender in the year 1991, he had passed Matriculation and Typewriting English Lower Grade Examination. The respondent herein made a representation to the petitioner-authorities on 10-3-1996 contending that he is entitled to be appointed as...
Sarvaraya Textiles Limited Vs. Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD705; [2002]108CompCas406(AP); [2001(91)FLR731]
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge declining to interfere with the order of attachment dated 5-7-2001 passed by the 3rd respondent under Sections 8-B and 8-G of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the EPF Act') as also the order appointing a receiver in respect of the appellant's business concern for proper management/running of the business in accordance with the rules.2. The appellant-petitioner is a sick Company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'SICA').FACTS:3. The admitted fact is that the appellant had committed default in remitting the amounts due under the Employees Provided Fund Scheme, 1952 to the tune of Rs. 1,63,775-55 during the period from November, 1992 to November, 2000 to the PF Account. Out of the said amount an amount of Rs. 72,96,915/- represents the employees' share of the Provident Fund co...
S.L.S. Textiles Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC132(AP)
S. Ananda Reddy, J. 1. This batch of tax revision cases is filed by the dealers aggrieved by the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad.2. The petitioners in all these cases are the dealers and manufacturers of cotton hank yarn. During the relevant previous year the petitioners have effected inter-State sales on hank yarn. In respect of the turnover relating to the sale of hank yarn, the dealers claimed exemption and the assessing officer accepted the said claim and granted exemption. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, however, initiated revisional proceedings under Section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' or 'the State Act'). According to him, the exemption granted by the assessing officer is not in accordance with law, as the exemption granted under the G.O., issued under Section 9(1) of the State Act, is only conditional and not general and therefore the benefit of exemption is not available in res...
Smt. Gopi Bai Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: AIR2002AP145
ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the Letter No. 926-931/5/22/2001 dated 8-2-2001 of the 1st respondent refusing to grant permission to make construction in the premises bearing No. 22-5-926 to 931 at Charminar, Hyderabad on the ground that it falls within the distance of 100 meters from the Charminar, a protected monument.2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner of the premises bearing No, 22-5-926-931 at Charminar. As the said premises were in dilapidated condition, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein issued notice directing the petitioner to demolish the building. As per the directions of the Municipality, the petitioner demolished the building and thereupon she filed an application before the 1st respondent for grant of permission to make fresh construction and that this permission was rejected on the ground that it falls within 100 meters radius from the Charminar which is an eminent monument covered by...
K.C. Kusuma Kumari W/O K.C. Rajendra Reddy Vs. the Government of A.P., ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT198
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The revisional order of the 1st respondent dated 11.8.1997 bearing No. 4211/M.II(1)/97, is assailed in this writ petition.2. The chronology of facts as asserted by the petitioner, leading to the order impugned is set out briefly as under:3. One Mr. R. Muralimohan Reddy made an application for grant of quarry lease of black granite in an extent of 1.5 Hectares in Sy. No. 56 of Timmapalli village, Gudipalem Mandal, Chittoor District. Eventually quarry lease was granted for the period 18.10.1979 to 17.10.1984. Mr. Reddy submitted an application for renewal for a period of 5 years on 19.7.1984, for the period from 18.10.1984 to 17.10.1989. This renewal application was not disposed of and since under the statutory environment of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short '1966 Rules') such non-disposal is to be treated as a deemed rejection, Mr. Reddy preferred a revision to the State Government under Rule 35A of the 1966 Rules. While so, he filed W.P....
P. Siva Prasad Vs. South Central Railways
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT216
ORDERJ. Chelameswar, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. The respondent-Railways invited tenders for execution of certain works viz., BG Track on St/Wooden PSC Sleepers, leading of Ballast from stacks and dumping on the Track from Ch.22700 to Ch.23390 in Dharur Yard at Vikarabad (Doubling on Secunderabad-Wadi Section). In response to the said tenders, the applicant herein submitted his offer on 21st August 1998. The said offer of the applicant was accepted on 15th October 1998 by the respondent-railways. According to the letter of the respondent dated 15th October 1998, the value of the works is Rs. 41,82.920/-.3. Thereafter, an agreement came to be executed on 20th November 1998 by reducing the terms and conditions of the contract into writing. Admittedly, the General Conditions of the contract framed by the Engineering Department of the respondent-railways, are applicable to the contract. Clauses 63 and 64 of the General...
Union of India Vs. K.S. Devasahayam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: [2002]120TAXMAN511(AP)
ORDERNayak, J.This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, (the CAT) in O.A. No. 289 of 1999 dated 14-10-1999 allowing the original application filed by the respondent herein and setting aside the proceedings of the third petitioner in C.R. No. 39/Estt/98, dated 1-2-1999, terminating the services of the respondent, with effect from 1-2-1999 and permitting him to appear for the departmental examination, to be conducted in future.2. The respondent was selected and appointed as Inspector of Income Tax by proceedings dated 22-5-1990 of the Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Hyderabad. The appointment order reads:'...
Dodla Kumaraswami Reddy Vs. Dodla China Abbayireddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD662; 2002(2)ALT641
1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff appellant against the decreand judgment passed in O.S. No. 138 of 1996 (O.S. No. 92 of 1984 of the Sub-Court Kavali), on 21st February, 1991 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovur.2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the defendants. The status of the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.3. The facts that lead to the filing of this appeal, are that the plaintiff originally filed the suit in O.S. No. 92 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kavali, which was subsequently transferred to file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovur and numbered as O.S. No. 136 of 1986, seeking for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares, for putting the plaintiff in separate possession of one such share, for directing the 1st defendant to render the correct accounts of all the moneys realised by him by selling the lands at Buchireddipalem and Annare...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »