Andhra Pradesh Court May 2008 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.
The Andhra Bank Represented by Its Branch Manager Vs. the State of And ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD602; 2008(4)ALT325
G. Bhavani Prasad, J.1. The success of the State of Andhra Pradesh in O.S. No. 58 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Bhimavaram by being granted a decree for Rs. 23,99,720-88 ps. with costs and subsequent interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization against both the defendants recoverable to an extent of Rs. 2,66,467-25 ps., together with interest from the date of deposit into bank with proportionate costs from the 1st defendant and the balance from the 2nd defendant by the judgment dated 20- 01-1989, led the Andhra Bank, Tanuku, the 1st defendant in the suit, to file the appeal.The plaintiff-State filed the suit against the appellant and Sivakami Sugars Limited, Pydiparru alleging that the 2nd defendant, a manufacturer of sugar by vacuum pan process, received sugarcane from various growers in Tanuku and nearby Tanuku in the crushing seasons in 1968-69 and 1969-70, for which the price had to be paid within 14 days from the ...
Katamreddi Vasundhara Vs. Joint Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALD539; 2008(4)ALT475
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings No. D1.CS/2340/2007, dated 16.4.2008 of respondent No. 2 whereby he cancelled the Fair Price Shop Dealership of the petitioner in respect of C. Vengannapalli Village, Putlur Mandal, Anantapur District.2. Heard Sri P. Kamalakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.3. Based on the report of the Tahsildar, Putlur, respondent No. 2 framed five charges against the petitioner, which read as under:Charge 1: That the F.P. Shop Dealer has not distributing the Essential Commodities properly to the cardholders. Thereby the F.P. Shop Dealer violated Clause 22(vii) of A.P.S.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2001.Charge 2: That the F.P. Shop Dealer is selling the stocks i.e., K. Oil 3 days only and rice 3 days only. Thereby the F.P. Shop Dealer has violated condition 4(i)(ii) of A.P.S.P.D.S. (Control) Order 2001.Charge 3: That the F.P. Shop ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›