Andhra Pradesh Court December 2011 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.
State Rep. by Central Bureau of Investig Vs. V.D.Rajgopal.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-2011
01. This is an application filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to cancel the bail granted to the respondent herein who is arrayed as Accused No.3 in the charge-sheet filed by the C.B.I. 02. The identity of this case is known because of its publicity and also the magnitude of fraud and huge gains involved in illegal mining. The respondent/A-3 is said to be the Director of Mining and Geology of Government of Andhra Pradesh, who worked in that capacity from 01-08-2005 to 20-03-2010. Obulapuram Mining Company (O.M.C)/A4 is said to be owned by a powerful politician and influential person by name Gali Janardhana Reddy and his brother, who claims to have acquired the rights in that Company. More details of his acquisition are not very much necessary for the purpose of this case. There has been consistent complaints of illegal mining and also illegal activities of the O.M.C. which obtained the lease and the Government itself had to issue G.O...
Vytla Prema Kumar. Vs. Vytla Annapurna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-2011
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.1. The appellant is the husband of the 1st respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 are their children. The respondents filed O.S.No.473 of 2002 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, against the appellant for maintenance by invoking the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). They pleaded that the appellant neglected to maintain them, though he is possessed of valuable assets and substantial income. The manner, in which the family relations got deteriorated, was mentioned in brief.2. The appellant filed a written statement opposing the suit. He stated that it is on account of the adamant attitude of the 1st respondent and her father that they are living separately. He pleaded that though he made repeated efforts to live together, the same did not fructify. He denied the plea of the respondents as to his income and assets.3. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 29.03.2004 awarding a sum ...
Deutsche Bank Ag Vs. Prithvi Information Solutions Limited
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-2011
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.ORDER:1. This company petition has been taken out by Deutsche Bank AG under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 95 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 seeking an order of winding up of Prithvi Information Solutions Limited (in short, `the respondent-company').2. The petition averments, in brief, are:-2(a) The petitioner carries on business as a banking company and is an Authorised Dealer and a scheduled commercial bank in India. The respondent-company is a public limited company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short, 'the Act") having its registered office at 10 Q3-A1, 10th Floor, Cyber Tower, HITEC city, Madhapur, Hyderabad 500081. The respondent company is a listed public company. It is engaged in the business to develop, import, export and deal in computer software & hardware, establishing and running data processing and computer centres and offering consultancy, data processing e...
M.Rajendra Kumar and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Its Pr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-2011
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.1. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in acquiring part of the petitioners' buildings as per notifications bearing No.D3/266/2007, dated 26.02.2007, and 18.12.2007, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for the consequential relief of setting aside award, dated 19.12.2009, passed by respondent No.4 insofar as it relates to the petitioners' buildings bearing Nos.6-1-1062/5 to 11 and 6-1-1062/12 to 17, inclusive of 6-1-1062/10/B and 6-1-1062/2/A of Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. I have heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and perused the record. The petitioners are the respective owners of the above-mentioned premises, which were notified for acquisition under the impugned notification issued on 26.02.2007. It is not in dispute that several writ petitions were filed since the issuance of the said notification for different reliefs concerning the acquisition. The l...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P.-i, Vs. Ms.Hansa Footwear.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-2011
MADAN B.LOKUR, J.1. The substantial question of law framed for our consideration is as follows:"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the closing stock of the firm should be evaluated at cost price for the purpose of determination of income notwithstanding the closure of business by the partnership firm and take over of the business by an independent legal entity viz., the company?"2. The assessee was in the business of manufacturing footwear. It was initially a partnership firm but subsequently it got converted into a private limited company in accordance with Chapter IX of the Companies Act, 1956. All the partners became shareholders in the company and their respective shareholding was in the same proportion as in the partnership firm.3. The assets of the partnership firm, i.e. footwear, was taken over by the company and the question that arose before the Assessing Officer was whether the closing stock of the partnershi...
Jala Anjaiah Vs. Ramisetty Anjaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-2011
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J1. The respondent filed O.S.No.44 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, against the appellant, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 06.06.2006 (marked as Ex.A.1). It was pleaded that, in his capacity as a Manager of the joint family, the appellant agreed to sell Ac.1.50 cents of land in survey No.576 of Timmayapalem Village, Prakasam District, for a consideration of Rs.1,38,000/-. It was alleged that Rs.50,000/- was paid on the date of agreement and that the appellant was under obligation to execute the sale deed with the participation of his sons by receiving balance of consideration. The respondent got issued a notice dated 22.08.2006 (marked as Ex.A.2), requiring the appellant to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration. Alleging that the appellant has not come forward,the suit was filed for the relief of specific performance.2. The appellant filed a written statement in the suit. He pleaded...
Gotika Shankar and Others. Vs. Gotika Mallaiah and ors
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.JUDGMENT:1. The appellant, respondents 1,2 and 4 and the husband of the 3rd respondent are brothers. The 2nd respondent, by name Gotika Narsoji, filed O.S.No.90 of 1993 in the in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Manthani against the appellant and respondents 1,3 and 4, for partition of 16 shops said to have been constructed over an area of 14 guntas of land in the limits of Manthani Gram Panchayt and allotment of one-fifth share to him. The appellant figured as defendant No.3 in the suit. The 2nd respondent pleaded that the 1st respondent (D1) purchased 71/2 guntas of land, the husband of the 3rd respondent (D2) purchased 41/2 guntas and himself (D3) and 4th respondent (D4), an extent of 2 guntas; and that with the contributions made by all the co-owners, the shops were constructed. It was also alleged that permission was obtained from the Gram Panchayat in the name of 'Gotika Narsoji and Brothers' and that the investment was made in such a way that the inequalitie...
A.Brahmananda Reddy Vs. the State of A.P., Rep by Its Public Pro
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.JUDGMENT:1. The complainant filed this appeal questioning order of acquittal of the accused recorded by the lower Court of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act). The complainant/PW.1 filed the complaint in the lower Court on the ground that Ex.P.1 cheque for Rs.1,30,000/- drawn by the accused in his favour was dishonoured as per Exs.P.2 and P.3 memos by the banker for want of 'sufficient funds' in the account of the accused. After issuing requisite notice under Ex.P.4 by way of courier service, the complainant filed the complaint in the lower Court. The lower Court recorded acquittal on four grounds namely 1) that Ex.P.1 cheque was not drawn towards discharge of any debt or liability, 2) that Ex.P.1 cheque was drawn by the accused as proprietor of Srividya Suppliers and Contractors and on account of said proprietary concern and therefore the complaint should have been filed impleading the proprietary concern as on...
Commissioner of Income Tax, VijayawadA. Vs. Sri Singamsetty Subba Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
MADAN B. LOKUR; sANJAY KUMAR, JJ.JUDGMENT:1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') is with reference to an order dated 5.6.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, Hyderabad in I.T.A. No. 293/Vizag/99, relevant for the assessment year 1995-96.2. Although the appeal was admitted on 6.2.2001, no substantial question of law was framed at that time.3. In our opinion, the following two substantial questions of law arise:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the circumstances contemplated by Rule 6DD(j) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 existed as far as the assessee is concerned 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse in law ?4. The assessee is a trader located in Vijayawada. He carries on the business of purchase and sale of suit case...
Marella Radhakrishna Vs. Kallam Peri Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
K.G.SHANKAR, J.ORDER:1. The plaintiff laid O.S.No.53 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. The suit was decreed. The defendant preferred appeal before the District Court, Guntur. There was a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal. The defendant filed I.A.No.5306 of 2010 to condone delay in filing the appeal.2. The delay was allegedly since the defendant was suffering from typhoid. The learned District Judge wrote a detailed and an exhaustive order and considered it appropriate not to condone the delay. Assailing the same, the present revision is laid by the defendant.3. I consider that the attitude of the Courts in the matters of condonation of delay is and should be very liberal. Added to it, there was a delay of 24 days only. In view of the length of the delay, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay.4. Consequently, this revision is allowed. The delay of 24 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Court is condoned. The appellate Court shall che...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »