Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD(Cri)334; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)356; 2002CriLJ3218
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. This is a reference made by the learned single Judge of this Court who has expressed his doubts about the correctness of an order of a Division Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No. 1899 of 1996 passed on 19.11.996. The sole question which is to be considered is whether a dealer in drugs is liable for punishment under Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), if the drug found in his possession was sub-standard or spurious.It appears that quashing proceedings were launched before the learned single Judge who found that on reading of Section 18(a)(i) of the Act even a dealer is liable to be prosecuted, if the drug in his possession was found to be spurious or sub-standard, but the Division Bench of this Court had declared that a dealer was not responsible for any offence under Section 18 read with Section 27 of the Act. We have car...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(6)ALT617
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, particularly, one in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to preserve the disputed property bearing No.10-2-91/87, Road No.3, West Marredpally, Secunderabad as per the proceedings of the first respondent in M.C.No.B/60/1989, dated 12-6-1995. The petitioner also prays for issuance of appropriate directions to initiate action against the persons responsible for changing the nature of the property.2. There is any amount of dispute between the parties in respect of the property bearing No.10-2-91/87, Road No.3, West Marredpally, secunderabad (for short 'the said property'). The petitioner and respondents 6, 7 and 8 exclusively claim the proprietary rights over the said property. Even according to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the said property belongs to one late Smt. P. Anjanamma, widow of late Guru Swamy Naidu. The said A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALT430
ORDERS.B. Sinha, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dt.2-4-1997 passed by the District Munsif, Tiruvuru, Krishna District in O.S.No.112 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the Court below rejected the plaint holding that the same is not maintainable. The said order must be held to be passed under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.'). An appeal thus would be maintainable there against in terms of Section 96(1) of C.P.C. , which reads thus: ' Appeal from original decree - (1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of the Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorised to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.' 2. In terms of Section 115 of C.P.C., as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, an embargo has been placed upon the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction there under,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 94(2001)DLT604
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. The sixth respondent is admittedly the owner of the plot in question. It is alleged that the sixth respondent obtained a sanctioned plan from the third respondent to set up a petroleum bunk i.e., the first respondent. It is alleged that being a highly placed person, the sixth respondent used his influence to get the necessary permissions enabling the first respondent to set up a filling station.2. The main contention of the petitioners is that plot No.730 is a residential plot and, therefore, the same cannot be used for any non-residential purpose. Reliance has been placed on the bye-laws of the fifth respondent-society. This Court issued notices to the respondents on 24.1.2001 and the respondents have since filed necessary counter-affidavits denying all the allegations.3. Mr. Muralinarayan Bung, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the Members of the 5th respondent-society. He also submits that the permission granted by the Municipal Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2002]253ITR171(AP); [2001]118TAXMAN480(AP)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. The petitioner-assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Andhra Pradesh-II, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein dated 21.2.2000 made under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act (for short `the Act') rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under the said Section for waiver of the interest levied under Section 220(2) filed this writ petition assailing the validity of the same.2. The 1st respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner on two grounds. The 1st ground is that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed an application on 27.11.1987 and that application was rejected by his predecessor by his order dated 25.02.1988 and therefore the second petition filed by the petitioner if it is entertained would tantamount to an application seeking review of the earlier order dated 25.02.1988 and such a course is impermissible. The second reason assigned by the 1st respondent to reject the application is that a ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2001AP456
Satyabrata Sinha, C.J. 1. The petitioners in this application are questioning the action of the respondents in setting up polling booth for the voters of Vengalapuram revenue village at Utlapallivaripalem hamlet purported to be situated in Yerrareddypalem Gram Panchayat as arbitrary and illegal.2. The contention raised in this application is that the distance between the villages Yerrareddypalem and Vengalapuram is about 2.25 kilometers. Yerrareddypalem Gram Panchayat consists of Yerrareddypalem revenue village, Utlapallivaripalem hamlet of Yerrareddypalem village and Vengalapuram revenue village. The said Gram Panchayat was constituted in the year 1995. The total number of voters in Yerrareddypalem is about 380 and the totalnumber of voters in Utlapallivaripalem is about 470. The distance between the Utlapallivaripalem and Vengalapuram is about 4 kilometers. Previously Vengalapuram was set up in survey No. 212 and thereafter the entire village was shifted to survey Nos. 201 and 111. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2001]104CompCas249(AP); (2000)2CompLJ61(AP)
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This application is filed by the applicant under rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1956, to direct respondent No. 1, i.e., the official liquidator to return to the applicant the additional machinery brought in to the company by him, the description of which is given in document No. 4 at page 17 of the material papers and also return to the applicant an amount of Rs. 20,00,000 brought in by him as promoter's contribution from the funds/assets of the company and further direct respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to return to the applicant Rs. 2,00,000 each received by them as 'upfront' payment. It is stated by the petitioner that he is a regular customer forming a major clientele and dependent upon the products of the company in liquidation for the petitioner's own manufacturing activity. When Satya Sai Polymers Limited Company was not in a position to conduct the business, the board of directors requested the petitioner to take over the company to strengthen its managemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(6)ALD710; 1999(5)ALT475
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is filed questioning the order in IA No.357 of 1998 in OS No. 202 of 1992.2. The said IA, was filed seeking to reopen the suit to enable the petitioner-plaintiff to examine two more witnesses on his behalf. The said prayer was granted by the lower Court.3. The reason for filing the application to reopen the matter as disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the petition shows that the plaintiff could not secure the presence of the witnesses as they were not available and since the said witnesses were available end were ready to depose on his behalf and their examination is essential and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants.4. As could be seen from the record, the matter is of the year 1992; trial was completed and the same was being adjourned from time to time for arguments. At that stage, the said IA, was filed seeking to reopen the matter. Except stating that the witnesses were not available at the time of trial, no other reason wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(6)ALD738; 1999(1)ALT6
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J. 1. Inthis writ appeal, the ranks of the parties mentioned in the writ petition.2. This appeal is by respondents 1, 2 and 4 in W.P.No.5929 of 1997 aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioners who sought reliefs of writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent authority to declare the land of 1000 sq. metres of each of the petitioners is outside the purview of the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976; todirect the 3rd respondent for sanction of the layout and also to direct the 4th respondent for entertaining the registration of the sale-deeds.3. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows:The petitioners purchased each an extent of 10 guntas or 1000 sq. metres from the pattadars of the land in S.No.79 part of Madapur village, Strilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District. At the time of purchase, the land in question was an agricultural l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(6)ALD801; 1998(6)ALT415
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. This writ of Habeas Corpus seeking a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to release the three alleged detenus viz., Yusif Bin Yahya, 2) Ayub Bin Yahya and 3) Mohd. Ghouse, who are the sons of the petitioner from the illegal confinement and a direction to produce the alleged detenus before this Court and also to pass appropriate direction, is filed by the father of the alleged detenus. According to the petitioner on 10-8-198S he was attending to his business along with his three sons i.e., the alleged detenus. On the same day around 4 p.m a Police Inspector along with a Sub-Inspector of Police and 8 to 10 Police Constables came to his shop located in Charkaman area of Charminar and caught-hold of his three sons who arc alleged to be detenus. When enquired about the conduct of the police personnel it was known that the Police are from Task Force of West Zone and that the petitioner was asked to meet the Deputy Commissioner of Task Force team at his office situated...
Tag this Judgment!