Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
Kalpana theatre Vs. Joint Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD639
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. Challenge is made to the order passed by the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram, licensing authority under A.P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970 imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner-cinema theatre in terms of Section 9 of A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (for short 'the Rules'), for running the theatre without valid licence and certificate from 1-1-1995 to 20-2-1995, in the present writ petition.2. The facts which are not in dispute and relevant for disposal of the writ petition are as under: The petitioner-cinema theatre obtained B-Form licence, which was renewed from time to time. It applied for renewal of licence on 11-7-1994 upto 30-6-1997 by remitting an amount of Rs. 375/-by way of challan No. 661 dated 11-7-1994. The second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, renewed B-form licence upto 31-12-1994 as Management had produced electrical certificate which is valid upto 31-12-1994 and directed the Management to apply for further ...
Addepalli Naga Raju Vs. Addepalli Rama Ratnam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD470
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. Heard Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narasu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A, Ramalingeswara Rao, Sri K. Someswara Kumar and Sri T.S. Anand, learned Counsel for the respondents and at their request the main revision petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 70 of 2003, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. He seeks to assail, by way of this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dismissing I.A.No. 217 of 2005 purported to have been filed under Order 23 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one.3. Few facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are that, in the suit, the plaintiff sought for partition of the suit schedule properties and the respondents filed their written statement, inter alia, stating various pleas, including a specific version that the...
Hyderabad Cylinders Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2006
Reported in: [2006]148STC104(AP)
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging an order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the authorities below. The writ petitioner also sought a direction to adjust the excess tax of Rs. 42,25,897 paid in respect of the production in excess of base year production for the period from October 4, 1998 to January 17, 2000 towards the base year tax payable for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 in terms of final eligibility certificate dated January 17, 2000.2. The facts which have given rise to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner undertook expansion of his industrial unit with effect from October 4, 1998. He made an application for deferment of sales tax in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 108, dated May 20, 1996 in September, 1999. The Industries Department issued eligibility certificate to the petitioner on January 17, 2000 quantifying the deferment of sales tax benefit of Rs. 3,02,65,370 to be availed for a period of 14 years from 1998-99 to 2012-2...
Ramachander Rao P. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ621AP
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This Criminal Petition is filed against the registering of C.C. No. 110 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapally, Karimnagar District, under Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') alleging that the petitioner herein had employed one Chennmma, daughter of Sri Balaswamy, aged 12 years, as a child labour in his work spot in violation of Section 3 of the Act.2. A complaint is filed by the Inspector, under Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 and Assistant Labour Officer, Peddapally, under Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner is a contractor of the works taken over by M/s. Teja Constructions at Peddakalvala Village, Peddapally Mandal, Karimnagar, carrying on the construction of Canal. The process of construction is declared as hazardous process as notified by the Government of India, vide Entry No. 11 of Schedule Part-B of the Act. On August 1, 2002 at about 12.45 p.m. th...
Federation of All India Tea Traders Associations and anr. Vs. Governme ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2006
Reported in: (2007)5VST21(AP)
Bilal Nazki, J.1. The petitioners contend that they represent All India Tea Traders and Tea Manufacturers. They submit that in order to bring uniformity in the country with regard to taxation on sales, the value added tax was introduced and it was also introduced in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Under the new dispensation there are only two rates of taxation, i.e., four per cent and 12.5 per cent. The items that are attracting higher rate of taxation include tea and coffee. Under this new dispensation, all the dealers who have a turnover limit up to Rs. 40 lakhs have to pay one per cent turnover tax on quarterly basis, while dealers with more than Rs. 40 lakhs turnover are to be registered as VAT dealers. It is submitted that an Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers was set up in the year 2000 under the Chairmanship of West Bengal Finance Minister Dr. Asim Dasgupta and it held 89 meetings for arriving at consensus and some States have accepted the recommendations of the Empower...
A. P. Circle of All India Bharat Sancha-r Nigam Ltd. Executives Associ ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(AP)573; [2006]283ITR388(AP); [2006]155TAXMAN282(AP)
Bilal Naziki J.The judgment of the court was delivered byThis writ petition has been filed by A. P. Circle of All India Bharat Sanchar Nigarn Ltd. Executives Association and A. P. Circle of BSNL Employees Union. In the writ affidavit filed by Pandu Ranga Rao, Vice-president of A. P. Circle of the first petitioner association it is contended that at the all-India level, the first petitioner has over 55,000 members and the A. P. circle has in its rolls about 5,000 members. All the members of both the petitioners were the servants of the Government of India under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and by the creation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL hereinafter referred to as) they became the employees of the BSNL from 1-10-2000. They have members on all-India level as well as A. P. circle. They seek a declaration by this writ petition that there was no liability on the first respondent to deduct tax at source in terms of section 192 of the Incometax Act, 1961 (he...
G. Hanumantha Rao Vs. Management of Nucon Industries Pvt. Ltd., Rep. b ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD418; 2006(3)ALT338
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. The petition in W.P.M.P.No. 33832 of 2005 is filed to review the order passed in W.P.No. 29430 of 1995 dated 04-11-2004 wherein this Court, on being informed that similar orders passed by the Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act had been challenged before this Court and during the course of hearing the matters were settled for amounts below Rs. 50,000/- and that the management was prepared to pay Rs. 50,000/- in full and final settlement of the claims of the respondent workmen, disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner-management to pay Rs. 50,000/- to each of the workmen in full and final settlement of their dues and held that they were not entitled to any other claims including gratuity and other terminal benefits. This Court directed that the said amount be paid to the workman within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.2. It is this order which is sought to be reviewed by the respondent-workma...
B. Rajeshwar Rao Vs. Chintha Kunta Narasimha Reddy (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD663
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 187 of 2001 in the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. At a later point of time, he filed LA. No. 2110 of 2003 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to permit the amendment of the plaint for claiming the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The trial Court allowed the LA. through order, dated 11-2-2002, directing the petitioner herein to deposit the entire consideration.2. The respondents filed C.R.P. No. 1372 of 2002, aggrieved by the order of amendment and the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 2460 of 2002 complaining about condition as to deposit of the entire consideration. Through a common order, dated 13-11-2002, this Court allowed both the C.R.Ps. It was held that the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal ought not to have dealt with the application inasmuch as allowing ...
Todupunoory Srinivas Vs. Venishetty Mahesh Kumar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD684
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the defendant against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak, in I.A. No. 344 of 2005 in A.S.No. 6 of 2005.2. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of the amount and the suit was decreed. Against which, the defendant preferred an appeal covered by A.S. No. 6 of 2005. During the pendency of the Appeal, he filed LA. No. 344 of 2005 under Order 41, Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') requesting the Appellate Court to grant stay of execution of the judgment and decree. The respondent opposed the application. After hearing both parties, the trial Court granted stay of execution of the judgment and decree on condition of depositing 1/4th of the amount and also the costs, within 15 days from the date of order and in the event of such deposit, the respondent is at liberty to withdraw the same and the proceedings in E.P. No. 4 of 2005 initiated for execution of the judgment and de...
Vemuri Lakshmi Nageswara Rao and anr. Vs. Joint Collector and Addition ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD317
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The two petitioners assail the order of first respondent, dated 19.5.2001, as illegal, void and opposed to principles of natural justice and seek to set aside the said order. The first respondent issued impugned order transferring 'B' Form licence to the third respondent in respect of Sri Rama Krishna Theatre, Machilipatnam. Be it noted, the first respondent exercised the powers under the provisions of A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (hereafter called, the Act) and A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 (hereafter called, the Rules).2. The fact of the matter, in brief, is as follows. A cinema theatre known as M/s. Sagar Talkies was constructed by Sava Srinivasa Sastry and Sava Nachara Vara Prasad sometime prior to 1974. In that year, the two owners of the cinema theatre sold the theatre to fifteen persons under registered sale deed, dated 26.5.1974. Those persons constituted themselves into a partnership firm and were running the theatre in the name and style o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »