Andhra Pradesh Court July 2007 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.
Araja Narasimha Rao Vs. District Co-operative Officer/Joint Register a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD698; 2009(5)ALT30(NULL)
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is the President of Pedakallepalli Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District (for short 'the Society'). He challenges the proceedings dated 22-3-2006, issued by the District Cooperative Officer-cum-Joint Registrar, Krishna District, the 1st respondent, requiring the petitioner to place the inquiry report dated 6-3-2006, submitted under Section 51 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'), before the General Body of the Society, for further action.2. The petitioner submits that he was elected as the President of the Society, on 22-10-2005, and ever since then, he is discharging the functions in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, and without any complaint from any quarter. It is alleged that the local M.L.A. addressed a letter dated 24-2-2005 to the 1st respondent for initiating action against the management of the society, and in compliance with the same, the 1st respond...
Jagarlamudi Rosaiah S/O. Venkanna Vs. Daggubati Venkanna S/O. Anjaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD26; 2008(1)ALT88
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Code' for the purpose of convenience) as against an order of remand made in A.S. No. 4/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Parchur.2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 203/2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parchur and the said suit was instituted for recovery of money. The Court of first instance in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.W. 1, D.Ws. 1 to 3, marked Ex. A.1, Ex. A.2 and Ex. X.1 to Ex. X.7, recorded certain findings and ultimately decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant in the said suit carried the matter by way of appeal A.S. No. 4/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Parchur, and the appellate Court made an order of remand having observed that proper issues were not framed and having framed a spec...
Mukand Engineers Limited Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2007
Reported in: (2007)10VST588(AP)
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The revision petitioner is the dealer in works contracts and on the roles of the Commercial Tax Officer, Dwarakanagar Circle, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner was finally assessed on gross and net turnover of Rs. 11,15,77,800 and Rs. 1,31,93,850 respectively for the assessment year 2000-2001 by the Commercial Tax Officer. On examination of the assessment record, the Deputy Commissioner noticed that the assessing authority has erroneously allowed the exemption of turnover of Rs. 9,83,83,950 being second purchase of iron and steel and M.S. plates. So, the Deputy Commissioner (CT) has taken up the revision and issued show cause notice dated February 27, 2004. Objections were filed by the assessee, and the Deputy Commissioner passed an order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner went to the Tribunal and filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which had dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the petitio...
V. Timmappa Vs. M.G. Brothers Finance Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD179; 2008(1)ALT51; II(2008)BC604; [2008]143CompCas233(AP); [2008]81SCL231(AP)
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondent No. l obtained a money decree against respondents 2 to 4 and the revision petitioner and filed E.P. for executing the said decree. Revision Petitioner filed an objection stating that inasmuch as the decree-holder i.e., first respondent is a Company, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or execute the decree, and so, the decree passed is without jurisdiction and cannot be executed in view of Section 10 of the Companies Act. The executing Court overruled the said objection and ordered further steps in the E.P. Hence this revision.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that inasmuch as Section 10 of the Companies Act lays down that the 'Court' having jurisdiction under this Act, is the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate, except to the extent to which jurisdiction has been conferred on any District Court or District ...
Gayatri Projects Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2007
Reported in: (2008)12VST232(AP)
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to adjust or refund an amount of Rs. 19,65,670 due to the petitioner as a refund for the assessment year 1995-96.2. Counter has been filed and we have heard learned Counsel for the parties.Facts are not at dispute. The petitioner had paid the amounts by way of sales tax and the respondents held that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs. 19,65,672. A communication was addressed by the Commercial Tax Officer on March 29,1997 to the petitioner, informing him that he had paid an amount of Rs. 19,65,672 in excess and the tax due from him for the relevant year was Rs. 30,82,090. He was also informed that out of the excess sum, Rs. 19,65,671 would be adjusted towards the dues from him for the period from April 1996 to December 1996. He was also informed that in case he wants any refund, he shall make an application in form No. XXIII and if no such clai...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented by Its Divisional Manager ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD677
G.V. Seethapathy, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.02.2001 in M.V.O.P. No. 424 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), (for short 'Tribunal), Guntur, wherein the claim of respondents 1 to 5 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs. 3,20,200/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition.2. Respondents 1 to 5 herein filed the claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased- Gunturu Satish Kumar, who died in a motor vehicles accident that occurred on the intervening night of 11/12.03.1998. The first respondent is the wife. Respondents 2 and 3 are the sons and respondents 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased-Gunturu Satish Kumar. According to them, on the intervening night of 11/12.03.1998, the deceased was proceeding in a lorry bearing No. A.I.W.3949 from Gurazala to Guntur, carrying rice bags and that on accoun...
N. Penchala Naidu Vs. Director of Mines and Geology and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD848; 2007(5)ALT159
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order of the 1st respondent - Director of Mines & Geology, dated 19-5-2007 thereby setting aside the quarry lease granted in favour of the petitioner for rough stone and road metal in Sy. No.438 of Pillaipally Village, Pochampally Mandal, Nalgonda District as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also seeks a direction to set aside the consequential order of the 2nd respondent dated 11-6-2007 granting quarry lease over the said area in favour of the 5th respondent,2. The facts, in brief, are as under:The 4th respondent herein was initially granted a quarry lease for rough stone and road metal in Sy. No.438 of Pillaipally Village, Pochampally Mandal, Nalgonda District over an extent of 4 hectares for a period of 15 years vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 17-9-2004 with a condition to execute the lease deed within 90 days from the date of grant. However, the 4th respondent failed to execute the lea...
Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee Represented by Its General Se ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALT639; 2008CriLJ402
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Petitioner in W.P. No. 21264 of 2004 claimed that her son Gera Kishore was killed by police officials after he surrendered to police. It appears that the deceased was shown as an accused in Cr. No. 301 of 2004 of Ongole Tq. Police Station. On 18.8.2004 at about 7.30 P.M. one Garikamukkala Giribabu was hacked to death. At about 8.00 P.M. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ongole came to the house of petitioner and questioned her about the whereabouts of her son. The Deputy Superintendent of Police told her that her son was suspected of having killed Garikamukkala Giribabu. Thereupon the petitioner consulted her daughter and son-in-law and at about 9.00 P.M. the petitioner's daughter and son-in-law took Kishore to Ongole Tq. police station. Sub-Inspector of Police, and Circle Inspector of Police were in the police station. In the meantime Deputy Superintendent of Police also came there. The petitioner's daughter and son-in-law handed over Kishore to police, whereupon the ...
Ch. Enoch Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALD811
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 31.1.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he rejected the appellant's prayer for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to promote him as Inspector, Railway Protection Force with retrospective effect.2. The appellant joined the service as Sub-Inspector in Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, with effect from 25.2.1963. In the course of service, five departmental enquiries were instituted against him and he was punished. He successfully challenged the orders of punishment in Writ Petition Nos. 4241 of 1972, 1639 of 1973, 3725 of 1975, 5240 of 1978, 11447 of 1983 and 12341 of 1983. His case was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in 1973, 1976, 1979, 1981, 1983 and 1984 for promotion to the post of Inspector, but he was not found suitable on account of adverse entries in the confidential reports. He was promoted as Inspector Grade-II with effect from 14.11.1987 and as Inspecto...
G. Anjaneyulu Vs. Gurram Krishnappa and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALD10
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 78/82 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 1st defendant in the said suit. The suit was instituted for the relief of specific performance of contract of agreement of sale dated 26.11.1981. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, on the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the Issues and having recorded the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 3, D.W. 1 to D.W. 5 and having marked Exs.A-1 to A-11, came to the conclusion that the appellant and the 2nd respondent, both defendants be directed to execute sale deed as per the terms dated 16.11.1981 in favour of the plaintiff, and in default the plaintiff be at liberty to get the sale deed registered through process of Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.2. Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »