Andhra Pradesh Court November 2004 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.
Eranki Srerama Murthy and ors. Vs. Eranki Atchuta Venkata Subramanyam ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD817
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. This letters patent appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in A.S. No. 2108 of 1993 dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs/appellants thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on 15.7.1983 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry in O.S. No. 42 of 1974 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants.2. The suit was initially instituted on 21.3.1974 by Eranki Srirama Murthy, now deceased, against his son Eranki Atchuta Venkata Subrahmanyam and four others. Defendant No. 1 is the second son of the plaintiff, Eranki Srirama Murthy, whereas Defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of Defendant No. 1. Eranki Srirama Murthy - the plaintiff had seven sons. First son, Suryanarayana Murthy, predeceased him in 1969 leaving behind his widow, six daughters and four sons. Except his sixth son, who was living at Secunderabad and practising as an Advocate, the other sons were living at Jegurupadu. The plaintiff, his w...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Virchow Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(182)ELT157(AP)
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. In this reference, the Tribunal remanded the case back, as according to it, the issue involved before it was whether the material removed by the party was an industrial waste or pure Methanol. The party claimed it was industrial waste whereas the Department claimed it was Methanol. It is the admitted case of the parties that the material is not available as it has been used by the party. However, the learned Counsel for respondent submits that at the appropriate time the material was available, but was not tested. The Tribunal on coming to a conclusion that since the material was not tested for coming to a conclusion as to whether it was Methanol or industrial waste, therefore it remanded the case back and gave the following direction :'Concurring with the submissions made by both sides and taking into consideration of the facts that the item has not been tested to ascertain the purity level, in line with the order referred to above, this matter is also remanded ...
The Food Inspector, Div. Ii Vs. D. Ravindranath and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1071
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The Food Inspector, Division II. Guntur District, Office of the Assistant Food Controller, Zone III, Guntur, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., presented the present criminal appeal as against the order of1 acquittal, dated 9-4-1999 recorded in C. C. No. 195 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mangalagiri, against the accused.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as hereunder :--A-1 is the vendor, A-2 is the proprietrix of M/s. Haripriya Beedies, Cigarettes, Fancy and Electricals, Shop No. 12 at Undavalli and A-3 is the manufacturer of J.S.R. Brand supari rawa. That on 27-10-1995 at 12.30 p.m., the complainant along with his attender-- Ch. Koteswara Rao inspected the shop of A-2, where A-1 was managing the business of the shop and they were informed that A-2 is the proprietrix of that shop. A-1 informed the complainant that the supari rawa (J.S.R. Brand) is meant for sale to public for human consumption. On su...
Assistant Inspector of Factories Vs. R. Seetharami Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)33; (2005)IIILLJ818AP
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the counsel on record.The Assistant Inspector of Factories, Chittoor preferred the present criminal appeal as against the order of acquittal recorded by IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor.2. The Assistant Inspector of Factories, Chittoor filed C.C. No. 200/1997 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor for violation of Section 6 and Rule 3-.A(2) and Rule 3-A(3)(a) and Section 21(1)(iv)(b) of Factories Act. The brief facts are as hereunder:On August 7, 1996 at 9.45 a.m., P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 alleged to have visited the accused factory and inspected in the presence of Supervisor Surendra Babu and in the absence of the accused P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 noticed violations mentioned in Exhibit P-1 Inspection Report. The accused constructed a lean to roof open verandah with height of 2.4 meters and width of 3.6 meters towards North side of machinery hall and installed kerosene and w...
Seven Hills Par Boiled Rice Mill Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST184(AP)
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. These writ petitions are filed by the registered dealers, who are the rice millers, aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Satyanarayana Raw and Boiled Rice Mill v. State of A.P. [2002] 34 APSTJ 153, and the consequential circulars issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated February 24, 2003 directing all the officers to follow the said decision, and also the consequential revision orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), revising the order of assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. In all these cases assessments were framed under the provisions of the Act by the respective assessing officers computing the benefit under Section 8A(1)(a) by applying the formula and thereafter granted the benefit of rebate in terms of Section 15(c) of the Act and thus determined the tax liability of the respective dealers. However, the revisional authorities issued notices after a la...
Vedire Venkata Reddy and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: AIR2005AP155; 2005(1)ALD325
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. Petitioners, including a retired Engineer-in-Chief, A.P. TRANSCO, belong to various sections of society. Petitioners 3 to 6 and others are stated to have formed an association called 'Pulichintala Project Porata Sambhavana Committee'. They claim that this association includes the affected farmers of Guntur and Nalgonda Districts whose agricultural lands are situate near the proposed site of Pulichintala Project and to safeguard the interests of the people living in twelve villages situated in Nalgonda and Guntur Districts, whose lands are likely to be submerged if the project is allowed to commence at the site, this writ petition has been filed as 'Public Interest Litigation' on 30.9.2004. The writ petition challenges the action of the respondents in commencing the Pulichintala Project for the purpose of stabilizing the command area under Prakasham Barrage. Inter alia, it is alleged that the respondents have decided to commence the Pulichintala Project without ob...
G. Murlidhar Rao Vs. P. Sakkubai and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD580
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This C.M.A is filed against the judgment, dated 26.2.2002, rendered by the Court of XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad, in A.S. No. 101 of 1999.2. The relevant facts may briefly be stated as under:The first respondent filed the suit against the appellant and the second respondent (who was given up in this appeal as not a necessary party), for the relief of recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property, and arrears of rent. She pleaded that she leased out the said property to the second respondent, and he in turn, had sub-leased the same to the appellant herein.3. The appellant as well as the second respondent filed written statements, opposing the suit. The Trial Court initially framed four issues and thereafter, six additional issues. The first respondent examined herself as PW-1, and did not file any documents. The second respondent and the appellant were examined as DWs. l and 2 respectively, and Exs.B-1 ...
Sufala Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B. Narasimha Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1291
P.S. Narayana, J.1. M/s. Sufala Finance Private Limited, filed the complaint C. C. No. 679 of 1996 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter in short referred to as Act' for the purpose of convenience).2. The case of the appellant/complainant is that the complainant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on business relating to Hire-purchase, financing, instalment purchase of various items represented by its Accountant K. Krishna Reddy, who is authorized by the complainant.It is also the case of the appellant/complainant that the accused had approached the complainant along with the guarantor for financial assistance to purchase a Bajaj Chetak Scooter which was accordingly finance to a tune of Rs. 20,000/- on 17-12-1995 to the accused after executing the necessary documents. The accused agreed to repay the amount in fifteen monthly equal installments, but failed to do so. After so many ...
J. Parameswarudu Vs. K. Krishna and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: 2(2007)BC71
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Mr. Rajesh, representing Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, representing appellant complainant and Mr. K. Rathangapani Reddy, representing R-1-accused and also learned Additional Public Prosecutor.2. The question, which was argued in elaboration by the Counsel on record is whether the complaint is barred by limitation having been filed beyond the specified period of 45 days or not.3. Counsel for the appellant would contend that the accused in his reply Ex. P-11 specifically stated that in his letter dated 15.9.1998 he explained his difficulties for not providing funds in time. The Counsel would contend that this is a date from which the period of 45 days may have to be reckoned for the purpose of computing the limitation for filing the complaint.4. On the contrary Mr. K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned Counsel representing R-1 -accused had taken this Court through the contents of Ex. P-11 and would submit that as per the tenor of the letter dated 15.9.1998 the date of receip...
M. Keshavulu and ors. Vs. M. Yellamma (Died) by Lrs. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD104; 2005(1)ALT502
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These three revisions, though filed under different provisions, arise between the same parties, and in relation to the same subject-matter. Hence, they are disposed of, through a common order.2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of late Kurmaiah. He was recorded as the protected tenant, in respect of Ac. 12-13 guntas of land, in Survey Nos.1032, 1033 and 1034 of Mahabubnagar Revenue Village and District. One Sri Maddur Chinnaiah was the land holder. The respondents in C.R.P. Nos.3432 and 3900 of 2004 are his legal representatives. An extent of Ac.2-00 gts. was sold, in favour of one Mr. Venu Gopal the sole respondent in C.R.P. No. 3895 of 2004, through sale deed dated 11.6.1975. Another extent of about three acres out of the said land in the three survey numbers was acquired by the Government, for house sites.3. The petitioners filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar (for short 'the M.R.O') under Section 32(1) of An...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »