Andhra Pradesh Court February 2006 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.
A.G.K. Associates and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: [2006]145STC316(AP)
Bilal Nazki, J.W.P. No. 11386 of 2005:1. A short point is involved in this case. The petitioners have challenged an entry in item No. 58 of Schedule IV of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as unconstitutional.2. The petitioner No. 2 is the partner of the first petitioner and he is aggrieved of the action of the State in taxing the skimmed milk powder and ultra high temperature milk (UHT milk) under item No. 58 of Schedule IV of the Act. It is contended that the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was repealed by the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Ordinance, 2005 which was, later on, enacted as Act No. 5 of 2005. Under the APGST Act 6 of 1957 the Government, in exercise of its power under Section 9, issued notification in G.O. Ms. No. 1091 (Revenue) dated June 10, 1957 exempting from tax the sales of fresh milk, curd and butter milk sold by dealers exclusively dealing in them and their products realised from surplus thereof. Another G.O...
S.V. Rao Vs. Credential Finance Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)665; 2006CriLJ1999
M.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. The appellant is the com- plainant in C.C. No. 919 of 1997 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.2. Respondents are the accused in the above case.3. A-1 is the firm A-2 to A-7 are its Directors.4. The parties are arrayed as they are narrated in the Court below. 5. The complainant filed the criminal case against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused by the impugned judgment dated 7-3-2000.6. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal is preferred.7. Briefly the facts are : The complainant has provided finance to the accused to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs under bill counting system and promissory note was executed in his favour on 12-2-1996. Since the accused did not pay the amount, cheque No. 626629, dated 5-8-1977 for Rs. 15 lakhs was issued and as there is default in payment the complainant presented the same...
A.K.N. Murthy and ors. Vs. B. Gangaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP244
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. In a suit for recovery of money filed against, the principal borrower Krishnudu, his wife and sons wore brought on record as his legal representatives after his death and a decree was passed in that suit after contest by them, in favour of the plaintiff for realization of the decretal amount from out of the assets of Krishnudu in the hands of the sons and wife. It is slated that when the property of Krishnudu was attached, his wife filed a petition claiming 1/5th share and that petition was allowed holding that her 1 /5th share cannot be proceeded against in execution of the decree and that order became final. The executing Court ordered further steps for sale of the remaining 3/4th share, in the E.P. filed by the decree holder and the same is being questioned in this revision.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that inasmuch as the decree is for realisation of the decretal amount from the assets of Krishnudu, and since Kr...
S. Srinivasulu and anr. Vs. Amberlite Resins P. Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas156(AP)
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Company petition was filed by the appellants on July 26, 1999. The learned company judge has dismissed the petition at the admission stage, therefore, the appeal.2. In the original petition, the appellants claimed that they had advanced certain amounts to the respondent-company as loan. The learned company judge noted that details of the loan were not given in the petition, nor any documents were annexed. He also noted that there was not even a receipt in the hands of the petitioners. The petitioners admitted in their petition that the respondent-company allotted certain shares in their favour and some other members of the family. On the allotted shares, no dividend was paid. They also alleged in the original petition that the substratum of the respondent-company had disappeared and the objects of the respondent-company had failed and it was impossible to run the business as there was no hope of trading at profit and the respondent-company would not be able to carry o...
P.V.V. Prasad and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD797; 2006(2)ALT503
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. These three writ petitions are filed by the petitioners who are Sarpanchs of Gram Panchayats namely Adivivaram Gram Panchayat, Pendurthi Gram Panchayat, Purushothapuram Gram Panchayat, Pulaganipalem Gram Panchayat, Lakshmipuram Gram Panchayath, Porlupalem Gram Panchayat, Narava Gram Panchayat, Sathiwanipalem Gram Panchayat, Gudlavanipalem Gram Panchayat, Bakkannapalem Gram Panchayat, Yellapuvanipalem Gram Panchayat, Paradesipalem Gram Panchayat, Kommadhi Gram Panchayat, Madhuravada GramPanchayat, China Mushidivada Gram Panchayat, Palavalasa Gram Panchayat and Devada Gram Panchayat assailing the action of the Government in merging their areas in Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation for formation of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation.2. The case of the petitioners as disclosed in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, in brief, is as follows:The petitioners in these writ petitions are directly elected as Sarpanches of Pendurthi Gram...
G. Bharadwaj Vs. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD335; 2006(2)ALT756; [2006(110)FLR866]
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. This writ petition is filed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatam, in I.D.No.17 of 1990, dated 27-08-1996, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-workman under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was dismissed holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.2. Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed in the Hindustan Shipyard Limited in the year 1972. In May, 1985, he took charge of the seat dealing with public tenders and while he was working in the said capacity in the purchase department, he was issued charge-sheet on 15-07-1986, wherein three charges were framed and he was suspended from service.3. The charges leveled against the petitioner is that on 30-06-1986 he sold five demand drafts, submitted by various parties in favour of Hindustan Shipyard Limited, to one Pankahj Mehta, proprietor of M/s. Jyothi corporation, Madras, to enabl...
Rapeti Veerinaidu (Died) by Lrs. Vs. Thota Gangadhara Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP309; 2006(3)ALD581
S. Ananda Reddy, J.1. The legal heirs of the plaintiffs are the appellants and the second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, in A.S.No. 126 of 1987, dated 8-8-1994 by which the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 21 of 1981, dated 21-4-1987 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram, decreeing the suit was reversed and the suit is dismissed.2. The substantial question of law that is raised in the present second appeal is whether there is an embargo contained in Section 17 of the Land Ceiling Act, ousting the power and jurisdiction of a Civil Court to pass a decree of specific performance of an Agreement of Sale ?3. The facts leading to the present second appeal are, the original plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10-5-1970 executed by the original defendant, who died during the pendency of the appeal, agreeing to sell the suit schedule pr...
N. Narasimha Reddy Vs. Brahmathantra Parakalamut and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD153; 2006(3)ALT603
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed, assailing the order, dated 7-10-2004, passed by the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, in LA. No. 761 of 2003 in O.S. No. 318 of 1989.2. The first respondent filed the suit for the relief of partition against the second respondent. Respondents 3 to 85 are said to have derived some interest in the suit schedule property, either from the first respondent or from the second respondent.3. Initially, the suit was filed by the first respondent, through its General Power of Attorney (G.P.A.), who is none other than the petitioner. Some disputes arose as to whether the petitioner herein was permitted at all to file the instant suit. The Matadhipathi of the first respondent died, even while this dispute was subsisting. Later on, the successor Matadhipathi totally disowned any relationship with the petitioner. As of now, the suit has undergone various stages, including the array of parties, with the change o...
P. Pushavathi and ors. Vs. R. Gangireddy Ramana Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1873
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao, the learned Counsel representing Sri B. Somasekhar, the learned Counsel representing petitioners-accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, Sri Sreenivasa Rao, the learned Counsel representing respondent No. 1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.2. The criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 187 of 2001 on the file of the VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur.3. The first respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that A1 and the present petitioners had committed the offences under Sections 406, 420 & 463 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The relationship between A1 and the present petitioners is not in serious dispute. The first petitioner-A2 is the wife of A1, 6th accused is the friend of the other accused and the other accused A3 and A4 are the sons of A1, The specific case of first respondent com...
Pidikiti Anand Raju Mohan and anr. Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1800
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard both the Counsel.2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 6 and 8 in C.C. No. 1394/2001 on the file of V. Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.3. The complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments, Act, 1881 in short hereinafter referred to as Act' for the purpose of convenience.4. Sri K. Chaitanya, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners raised two contentions, one relating to maintainability of the complaint by a power of attorney and yet another ground that these petitioners/ A-6 and A-8 were not the Directors on the date of issuance of the cheques but were inducted as Directors on a subsequent date and hence they cannot be fastened with liability. The learned Counsel In all fairness would contend that he is not seriously canvassing the first contention relating to the maintainability of the complaint by a power of attorney, but however would maintain that on the second ground inasmuch as the petitioners cannot be fastened with t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »