Andhra Pradesh Court November 2010 Judgments

Savara Bennadu Vs. the State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

: This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam on 08.01.2001 in S.C.No.94 of 1999. The first accused is the appellant. In all, five accused were put up for trial before the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge. Among the accused, the appellant/A-1 was tried for the charges under Sections 376(2(c)(e) and 506(ii) of IPC and the accused 2 to 5 were tried for the charges under Sections 201 and 176 of IPC. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted A- 2 to A-5 for the charges under Sections 201 and 176 of IPC, but convicted the appellant/A-1 for the offence under Section 376(2)( c ) of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, A-1 preferred the present appeal. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is like this: The appellant/A-1 ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Padmavathi Hatcheries (P) Limited,

Court: Andhra Pradesh

ORDER: The cases referred under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and Income Tax Tribunal Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Act, involve common question compelling disposal by a common order. All the referred cases are at the instance of the Revenue. The only question referred to this Court is; "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, poultry shed should be treated as plant, thereby allowing the assessee company in a higher rate of depreciation as applicable to plant and not the rate of depreciation as applicable to building"? Before considering rival contentions of the Junior Counsel for Revenue and the Counsel for assessees, it is appropriate to notice the background of the referred cases and ITTAs by referring to R.C.No.53 of 2001 and I.T.T.A.No.376 of 2006. In R.C.No.53 of 2001, M/s.Srinivasa Hatcheries (Private) Limited, Hyderabad, which runs a hatchery and poultry farm, buys one-day old chicks, grows them, hatches them and after incuba...

Dr.Reddy's Laboratories Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (CT) LT ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

ORDER: An important recurring question concerning the authority of the State and its agents in the matter of refund of Value Added Tax (VAT) (sales tax as well), again falls for consideration in this writ petition in which fact of the matter is not at all disputed. The refund of duly paid VAT as certified by the competent tax authority, and the question of authorizing/approving such refund by an inferior authority also incidentally arises for consideration. The petitioner, a manufacturer of drugs, is a VAT dealer on the rolls of the Assistant Commissioner (LTU), Punjagutta Division - first respondent herein. The assessment for 2005-06 was completed resulting in refund of VAT. The petitioner filed an application in Form No.115 under Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (VAT Act) and Rule 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (VAT Rules), claiming refund of about Rs.3.53 crores. The first respondent conducted enquiry and while accepting the claim rest...

K.Moses Vs. Apsrtc, Reptd. by Its Managing Director

Court: Andhra Pradesh

ORDER: Denial of alternate employment by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in terms of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is called in question. The petitioner, a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), met with an accident while returning home from duty on 03.01.2006. He was declared unfit to continue in the post of a Driver owing to the injuries and the disability which resulted from the accident. It is his case that he sought alternate employment in accordance with Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1995'), as he had no other source of income and had to provide for his family including three school going daughters. He got issued legal notice dated 13.08.2007 to the APSRTC in this regard. While so, he received the APSRTC's letter dated 09.0...

The Municipal Council, Vs. Mohd.Abdul Rasheed S/O.Late Haji Gulam Raso ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

: (Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla) 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.5.2002 in O.S.No.10 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda, the first defendant filed this appeal. The suit filed for declaration of title and for recovery of suit schedule property was decreed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. 3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that one Gulam Musthafa was the owner and possessor of 36500 square yards of land in Nalgonda revenue village prior to Fasli 1320. Out of it, 29376 square yards forms part of old Survey No.3 and new Survey Nos.841 and 842 and the remaining 7120 square yards forms part of Ramagiri Ambari, adjacent to the old Survey No.3 towards East. Gulam Musthafa constructed a house in a portion of land after obtaining necessary permission. After the death of Gulam Musthafa, his two sons, being legal heirs, sold the said house with the entire open land to one Shahabodd...

The State of A.P. Rep by Secretary to Govt, Vs. K Srinivas Rao and Ano ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

: This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed at the instance of State of Andhra Pradesh and District Collector, Krishna district at Machilipatnam, aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 14175 of 2002 dated 13.8.2002, allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein inter-alia sought for a mandamus directing the District Collector Krishna district at Machilipatnam not to make any elections to the composite Pulluru Gram Panchayat without passing the orders after examining the issue with reference to the rules in force as on the date of the order dated 22.11.1995 in W.P. No. 10987 of 1995 followed up by the other orders dated 2.1.2002 in W.P. No. 16896 of 2000 and without reference to subsequent rescinding of the rules or the imposition of the ban on bifurcation in G.O.Ms.No. 163 PR and RD dated 8.5.2002 and by declaring the action of the first respondent in Memo No. 266...

B.Jaya Raghava Naidu. Vs. B.Rama Subba Reddy.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2011AP62

: The issue regarding the nature of a document sought to be marked in evidence by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.23 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, falls for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The true translation of the document in question is as under: "On 7-5-2005 I have borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from B.Jaya Raghava Naidu, s/o.Tirupalu. I will repay in six months". On the foot of this document, the plaintiff filed the above mentioned suit for recovery of the alleged debt from the defendant. In the plaint, the document is described as a 'receipt'. In his written statement the defendant maintained that the said document is a rank forgery as he never executed "the suit receipt in favour of the plaintiff". The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff created the suit receipt by forging his signature; and that to the suit notice he has sent a suit...