Andhra Pradesh Court August 2005 Judgments

Yellamilli Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. Bokka Ramachandrarao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2006(3)ALD124; 2006(3)ALT545

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 78 of 1987 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari. He filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, in respect of three items of property indicated in the schedule.2. One Bonthu Bulleyya was the maternal uncle of the appellant and the respondent. He is said to have executed a deed of settlement, way back on 20-4-1956 retaining life interest in the properties referred to therein, and creating vested remainder, in favour of the respondent. The appellant pleaded that later Bulleyya executed another deed of settlement on 29-6-1985, marked as Ex.A.1, by retaining the life interest in respect of 60 cents of land in three different Survey Numbers in himself and creating vested remainder in favour of the appellant. It was alleged that under the influence of the respondent herein, the said Bulleyya executed a revocation deed, dated 7-8-1985, and...

Bapatla Engineering College and Another Vs. Thimmapuram Seshadri

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

I. Venkatanarayana, President: 1. Opposite parties are the appellants. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum, Guntur in C.D. No. 187/1999 dated 11.7.2003 the present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are set out as hereunder: The complainant was a diploma holder and appeared for Engineering Common Admission Test for diploma holders during the year 1995-96 and obtained rank No. 301. He joined the college of the opposite party and studied for one year and during the first year of examination gave a letter dated 5.5.1997 to the second opposite party stating that he wanted to withdraw from the college and requested the opposite parties to return the original certificates which were submitted at the time of admission. The opposite parties asked the complainant to pay the fees for the remaining two years and promised that they would obtain a letter from the Competent Authorities pe...

Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi (Urban) Mandal Vs. Commissioner of A ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(5)ALD217

ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J. 1. These two writ petitions are somewhat interconnected in a way, the fate of writ petition in W.P. No. 22656 depends upon result in W.P. No. 22868 of 2002.2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi, Urban Mandal filed W.P. No. 22868 of 2002 with a prayer to issue order more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling the records relating to and connected with the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals, A.P. Hyderabad vide No. P3/1639/99 dated 18-12-2001 and quash the same.3. P. Gopala Reddy and 17 others filed W.P. No. 22656 of 2002 with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the order of the Settlement Officer in his proceedings dated 25-10-1982 S.R.No. 65/11(a)/1981 C.T.R. which has been confirmed by the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlement in Revision Petition No. 186/82(H1) dated 30-9-1999 as well as the Commissioner,...

A.K.R. Minerals Private Ltd., Rep. by Its Director, A. Ashok Kumar Vs. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(6)ALD112; 2005(5)ALT403; [2006]134CompCas498(AP); [2005]64SCL418(AP)

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in I.A. No. 83 of 2005 in O.S. No. 455 of 2001 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.2. The first respondent in the C.P.P. moved the application I.A. No. 83 of 1995 in O.S. No. 455 of 2001 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to permit her to come on record as fourth defendant in the suit. The said application was opposed. However, the learned Judge allowed the said application and aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is preferred.3. Sri Rajendra Deshmukh, the learned Counsel representing petitioner-first respondent in the application-plaintiff in the suit would contend that the Company can institute the suit represented by a Director and in fact, any Director should be interested in protecting the interest of the company. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant clau...

Amarnadh Palacharla Vs. Venkatalaxmi Palacharla

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(5)ALD763; 2005(5)ALT642

D.S.R. Varma, J1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order-dated 12-12-1996 passed in O.P.No. 15 of 1992, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada.2. O.P. No. 15 of 1992 was filed by the husband-appellant, seeking divorce on the ground of insanity (incurable un-soundness of mind) and the same was rejected by the Court below. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant-husband. For convenience sake, the parties hereinafter, are referred to as 'husband' and 'wife'.3. The spouses are closely related. To be more precise, the husband was the son of the respondent's maternal grandmother's sister before marriage. The spouses knew each other very well before their marriage. Subsequently, marriage was performed and solemnized. Later, husband, after completing his graduation in engineering, went to United States of America and later took his wife also and by that time wife was actually doing her law. After the wife landed in states and joine...

Velamala Appa Rao and anr. Vs. Baggu Appayya and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(6)ALD802; 2005(5)ALT695

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in A.S. No. 11 of 1997. The lower appellate court had reversed the judgment of the court of learned District Munsif, Narasannapeta, in O.S. No. 31 of 1992.2. The appellants herein filed the suit against the respondent and his son for the relief of declaration that the wall in between them is common to both the parties and that the latter be restrained from making any constructions using the said wall as base, and from interfering with the right of the appellants to rest the 'Vennupatti' on the joint wall (the last part of the relief was claimed as one for mandatory injunction). The 2nd defendant died during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, the suit was treated as abated against him through an endorsement dated 19-1-1993. The trial court decreed the suit through its judgment dated 13-9-1996. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent herein fil...

Syed Meer Jakeer HussaIn Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)575; 2005CriLJ4276

P. Swaroop Reddy, J1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction imposed on the appellant-accused in S.C. No. 50 of 2002, dated 30-9-2003, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, East Godavari, Rajahmundry whereunder the learned Judge sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo life imprisonment, and also pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), to undergo three years imprisonment and also pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment' for one month for the offence punishable under Section 201, IPC and to undergo three years imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 379, IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is a resident of Ramchandrapuram who runs foot wear shop under the name New Chaitanya foot wear shop at Rama...

Karvy Consultants Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2006[]STR7

ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a declaration that Section 65(90) read with 65(11) of the Finance Act, 2001 has no application to the petitioner company upto 16-8-2002 and to consequently interdict the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate (1st respondent) from proceeding further with the show cause notice HQOR/32/2004-AE-II, dated 27-12-2004.2. The facts, to the extent necessary for the purpose of this writ petition, are that the 1st respondent, vide proceedings dated 27-12-2004, called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why:(i) An amount of Rs. 28,70,494/- should not be paid by them towards Service Tax on the amounts received by them during the period from 16-7-2001 to 15-8-2002, on account of providing taxable services under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.(ii) Interest should not be paid by them on the amount demanded at (i) above under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994.(iii) A penalty should n...

Mukunda Dairy Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2006]144STC177(AP)

ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on business in purchase and sale of milk and milk products. It was provisionally assessed for the assessment year 2003-04 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') by the first respondent vide order dated August 20, 2004 levying tax on the disputed turnover of Rs. 5,92,52,237 for the said assessment year 2003-04. The assessing authority rejected the claim of the petitioner that the entire turnover is exempted from the tax in view of G.O. Ms. No. 1091 dated June 10, 1957 and accordingly levied the tax on the disputed turnover, which inter alia, includes the sale turnover of cream and SNF (solid not containing fat).2. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the Act before the second respondent challenging the order of the assessment dated August 20, 2004. That at the time of filing of the appeal, the petitioner, as is required under the sec...

The State Rep. by Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Vs. Super Power ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)394

ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. The State represented by Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Hyderabad preferred this revision case challenging the order of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad dated 31-1-2002 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2090 of 2001 in S.T.C. No.1873 of 2000.2. The first respondent is a firm undertaking certain contract works under the State and Central Government establishments. S.T.C.No.1873 of 2000 was filed against the first respondent under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act') for breach of Section 12(1) of the Act on the ground that it undertook the contract work of Jet Airways Limited without obtaining licence from the competent authority. The complainant-State alleged that the first respondent undertook the contract work of aircraft cleaning, loading and unloading of Cargo, driving, sweeping and cleaning etc., of Jet Airways Limited, Hyderabad by engaging 104 labour to attend those works without...