Andhra Pradesh Court May 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.
Shivarathri Sharath Kumar Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Chief Secretary to ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALT299
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The Collector and District Magistrate, Karimnagar District, the 2nd respondent herein, passed an order dated 25-03-2006, directing detention of the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'), alleging that the petitioner is indulging in acts of selling illicit liquor, which is injurious to health. It is alleged that the petitioner is a bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Reference is made to three cases, which were registered against the petitioner. The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent was approved by the 1st respondent through order in G.O. Rt. No. 1749, dated 29-03-2006. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent issued G.O.Rt. No. 2601, dated 19-05-2006, extending the period of detention upto 12 months, from the date of detention.2. Learned Couns...
G. Rajababu Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD763; 2006(4)ALT276
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The appellant was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer for K.O. Mallavaram village of Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District, in the year 1989, by the 1st respondent. In the year 1999, proceedings were initiated against him, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, and the Joint Collector, East Godavari, passed an order dated 21-9-1999, directing confiscation of the seized stock. Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 1999, preferred by the appellant in the Court of Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, is said to be pending.2. The 1st respondent issued order dated 3-1-2000, cancelling the dealership of the appellant, on the ground that an order of confiscation of stock has been passed by the Joint Collector, on 21-9-1999. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P. No. 1371 of 2000.3. Appellant contended that he was not issued any notice by the 1st respondent, before the order of cancellation was passed. Several other contentions were also raised. The respondents ...
Poosala Narsayya Vs. the State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3258
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The Collector and District Magistrate, Karimnagar District, the 2nd respondent herein, passed an order dated 9-2-2006, directing detention of the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the A. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Ledgers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'), alleging that the petitioner is indulging acts of selling illicit liquor, which is injurious to health. It is alleged that the petitioner is a boot legger as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Reference is made to three cases, which were registered against the petitioner. The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent was approved by the 1st respondent through order in G.O. Rt. No. 850, dated 18-2-2006. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 1st respondent issued G.O. Rt. No. 1506, dated 17-3-2006, extending the period of detention up to 12 months, from the date of detention.2. Learned Counsel for th...
Rajapal Singh Vs. the Collector and District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3841
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed, with a prayer to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, for production and release of Rajpal Singh S/o, late Ganesh Singh. The mother of the petitioner had filed an affidavit, in support of the writ petition. She stated that her son was detained under the provisions of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, for short 'the Act', through order of detention, dated 3-4-2006, passed by the 1st respondent.2. The 1st respondent passed the order of detention, stating inter alia that the petitioner is a boot-legger, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, and that it became necessary and inevitable to detain him, with an object of preventing his acts, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order passed by the 1st respondent was approved by the 2nd respondent, through G.O.Rt. No. 1935, dated 13-4-2006.3. The petition...
Kala Jyothi Process Private Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-23-2006
Reported in: [2006]148STC109(AP)
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner states that it is a publisher of books and has been subjected to assessment of tax for the year 2003-2004 by the first respondent. The petitioner further states that it is not liable to pay any tax on the publications made by it. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, it preferred an appeal before the second respondent along with an application for stay. On rejection of the said application, it approached the third respondent in a revision. The third respondent dismissed the revision on May 12, 2006. Hence, this writ petition.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes.3. Though extensive submissions have been made touching on the validity of the order of assessment, this Court is not inclined to deal with the same at this stage. At the same time, the petitioner cannot be required to pay the entire amount covered by the order of assessment. The interest of the State as well as the pe...
Karvey Stock Broking Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2006
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas335(AP); [2006]67SCL427(AP)
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. By the impugned order dated 27-4-2006 under the hand of the second respondent, a series of directives have been issued insofar as the petitioner is concerned including those contained in paragraphs 17.4 and 17.7 of the said order. Paragraph 17.18 of the second respondent's order dated 27-4-2006 states that the order shall be treated as show-cause notice against the concerned entities (including the petitioner) and that these persons/ entities may file their objections, if any, to the order within 15 days from the date of the order and also avail themselves of an opportunity of personal hearing at the specified venue on a mutually convenient date and time and may also inspect the relevant documents for the said purpose. Prima facie, a post interim decisional opportunity is provided pending final orders to be passed. 2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, in a subsequent Press Release dated 28-4-2006, a clarification has ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›