Andhra Pradesh Court March 2003 Judgments

V. Sridhar Goud Vs. Mrs. Meena Kedia

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The opposite parties 14 and 15 in C.D. 806/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad are the appellants. 2. The case of the complainants is that they deposited moneys with the first opposite party Co-operative Urban Bank and as the amounts were not re-paid with interest as promised they filed the complaint, which was allowed by the District Forum with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 500/- for each of the complainants. Hence the appeal. 3. Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-5, Ex. A-13 and Ex. A-14, Ex. A-20 to Ex. A-23 are the FDRs obtained by the complainants from the first opposite party Bank, of which, the appellants are the Directors. 4. The appellants alongwith some of the opposite parties stated in their written version that they submitted their resignations which were actually accepted in the Board of Directors meeting. It is further stated that the first opposite party Bank is working under the directions of RBI, as per Section...

Sutari Venkata Rama Brahmachari and ors. Vs. Jaggavarapu Ramakrishnamm ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(4)ALT418

P.S. Narayana, J.1. Sri V. Parabrahma Sastri, the learned counsel representing the appellants had raised the following substantial question of law in the present second appeal: 'Whether the appellate Court had not erred in not considering the expert's evidence and opinion while deciding the validity of Ex.A1, the agreement of sale dated 12-03-1960?'. The learned counsel in all fairness had submitted that except this substantial question of law, none else falls for consideration in the present second appeal. The learned counsel had also submitted that on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence both the Courts had recorded concurrent findings, which cannot be seriously assailed in the second appeal. The learned counsel also had placed strong reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in MURALI LAL v. STATE OF M.P., AIR 1980 S.C.531 As usual in a second appeal the counsel for the respondent had justified the findings recorded by both the Courts below and in view of the fact t...

Raasi Cements Limited Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2004]137STC47(AP)

ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. Both the appeals are filed by the same assessee challenging the common order dated 1.10.1994 in CCT's. Procs. No. L.V(1)370/1994 made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, on various grounds.2. As both the appeals arise out of the common order, they are disposed of by the following common order.3. Appellant is the registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. Final assessment was made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Miryalaguda on a gross and net turnovers of Rs.68,14,57,810/- and Rs.43,37,60,440/- respectively for the assessment year 1988-89 and for the assessement year 1989-90 on a gross and net turnovers of Rs.96,16,86,150/- and Rs.58,50,44,875/- respectively. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad Rural Division. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, through his order, remanded the a...

Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society Vs. Commissioner of Prohibition and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(3)ALD36

J. Chelameswar, J. 1. These two writ petitions are filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the decision of the 2nd respondent dated 17.9.2002 by two separate proceedings of the abovementioned date. The 2nd respondent in each of these writ petitions who is the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad, suspended the licence of each of the petitioner-societies. The license to the petitioners were issued to these societies under the provisions of Excise Act to run a toddy shop each.2. On 26.8.2002, officers of the Excise Department inspected the licensed premises of each of the petitioners herein and drew samples of the toddy that was offered for sale. In the counter-affidavits filed in these two writ petitions, it is stated that such inspection was conducted pursuant to the fact that it had come to the notice of the respondents that some of the licensees were selling adulterated toddy. Thereafter, criminal cases were registered against each of the petitioners ...

Dr. K.V. Seshaiah Vs. Ntr University of Health Sciences and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(3)ALD435

ORDERG. Rohini, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 1st respondent-University in denying admission to the petitioner in MD (General Medicine) Course in Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, against the in service OC category as unconstitutional and illegal and further to declare that the action of the 1st respondent-University in granting admission to the 4th respondent into the said course is illegal and unconstitutional and for consequential reliefs.2. The facts are not in dispute. For the Academic Year 2002-2003 entrance testwas conducted on 30.10.2002 for admission to Postgraduate Medical Courses in the Medical Colleges affiliated to the 1st respondent-University.3. The petitioner who completed MBBS Course in the year 1981 from Kurnool Medical College, after completing one year housemanship at the Government General Hospital, Kurnool worked as a Medical Officer with South Eastern Railway Division till 1987. Thereafter he resigne...

Vanguri Mariamma Vs. Kandukuri Gangamma and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(3)ALD427; 2004(4)ALT185

ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash theorder of the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal, Nalgonda District, in O.P. No. 7 of 2001 dated 29-10-2002 by which the Election Tribunal declared the election of the petitioner to the post of Sarpanch of Kondakindigudem Gram Panchayat, Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda District as invalid and further declared the 1st respondent herein as having been elected to the post of Sarpanch of Kondakindigudem Gram Panchayat, Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda District.2. The brief facts of the case may be noticed thus: Pursuant to the notification dated 1-8-2001 issued by the State Election Commission, elections were held on 17-8-2001 to the post of Sarpanch and members of Kondakindigudem Gram Panchayat, Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda District. The petitioner herein, 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent herein had contested the election to the post of Sarpanch. The petitioner herein was declared to...

Swamy Talkies Vs. Joint Collector and Licensing Authority Under A.P. C ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(3)ALD508

ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed by Petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st Respondent-Licensing Authority, under which a fine of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed for the alleged violation of the conditions of Licence and the Petitioner seeking declaration that the said impugned order is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and for a consequential order setting aside the impugned proceedings. 2. The Petitioner is carrying on the business of running a cinema theatre, having obtained a valid licence under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder. It is stated that while so the Petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 13.3.1992 calling upon the Petitioner to show cause why a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- should not be imposed for violation of Section 4(5) of the A.P. Entertainment Tax Act and also Condition 20 of the Item 12 of Form-B Licence. In response to the said ...

P. Mazher Vs. State of A.P. and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)258; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)362; III(2003)BC491; 2003CriLJ3269

ORDERDubagunta Subrahmanyam, J.1. This revision is filed against the judgment dated 6.12.2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1999 on the file or Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.2. The second respondent herein filed a private complaint in CC No. 106 of 1997 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused is said to have issued a cheque dated 1.1.1997 for a sum of Rs. 1,24,033/-. After trial, by his judgment dated 25.2.1999, the learned Magistrate held that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act. After convicting him for the said offence, the learned Magistrate sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 1,70,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- shall be paid to the complainant towards compensation under Section 357, Cr.P.C., and the balance amount shall be credited to the Government towards fine and in de...

Kantheti Bhogeswara Rao Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)41; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)261; 2003CriLJ3651

ORDERDalava Subrahmanyam, J.1. The revision petitioner-accused filed the revision against the judgment of conviction and sentence in STC 130 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikulur in convicting the revision petitioner-accused for the offence under Sections 16(1)(a) (ii), 7(v) and 2(ia) (b) and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for two . months which was confirmed in Crl. Appeal No. 158 of 1997 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Krishna at Machilipatnam.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows;The Food Inspector, Division II, Krishna District, Machilipatnam laid the complaint against the accused alleging that the accused was the proprietor of Shri Subrahmanyeswara Enterprises, Singarayapalem village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District and that on 4-10-1994 at about 2.30 p.m. the Food Inspector along with his staff inspected the ...

Maheswari Roller Flour Mills Vs. Additional Commissioner of Civil Supp ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(3)ALT330

ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner aggrieved by the order of the 1st Respondent in confirming the order of the 2nd Respondent and confiscating 30% of the seized stocks to the Government.2. The Petitioner is roller flourmill carrying on the business in wheat products. It has got a licence under Wheat Roller Flourmills (Control Order), 1957, which is a Central Control Order. It is also stated that under the said licence, the Petitioner's mill has got 750 Metric Tonnes Capacity per month and to that extent the quantity of wheat is being released as per the orders of the Central Government by the Food Corporation of India. Out of the sanctioned quantity of 750 MTs. of wheat, the Petitioner lifted only 300 MTs. during the month of February 1985 and 400 MTs. up to 10th April, 1985 as there was no sufficient demand in the market. However, at the instance of the 3rd Respondent, a case was registered before the 2nd Respondent alleging certain contraventions...