Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-06-2007
Reported in : 2008(1)ALT113
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Sri B. Subba Reddy, represented by his General Power of Attorney Holder filed the present writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent-appellate authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, New Delhi in an appeal No. 48 of 2005, dated 28-12-2005 and consequently allow the appeal of the petitioner as prayed for and to grant such other suitable relief.2. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri A. Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General, Smt. M. Lakshmi Kumari, Shri P. Vikram representing Sri K. Kodanda Ram, Sri K.Gopalakrishna Murthy, Sri V.V.S.N. Raju, the learned Counsel representing the respective respondents.3. At the outset it can be stated that the serious contest appears to be between the petitioner Sri B. Subba Reddy and the 6th respondent Sri V.N. Sunanda Reddy, Managing Director, M/s ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-31-2007
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2102
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This matter has come up before this Court on a reference by a learned single Judge of this Court to consider the question:Whether the date of filing of the complaint or the date of the court taking cognizance of the offence is relevant for the purpose of Section 468 Cr.P.C.2. The question of law involved in this case, though short one, has been the subject of conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court in Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran 1990 (Supp) SCC 121 and Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 27 (SC).3. The learned single Judge expressed his inability to agree with the view taken by this Court in Crl.P. No. 3572/2003 wherein it was held that the date of taking cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate is relevant and not the date of filing of the complaint before the court for the purpose of Section 468 Cr.P.C. Hence made the reference. 4. In order to appreciate the question arising for determination, facts-in-brief may be stated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-02-2007
Reported in : AIR2007AP265; 2007(4)ALD349; 2007(4)ALT497
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This common order shall dispose of these three writ petitions as question raised and the background of the cases is similar. The respondents in these three writ petitions are also the same.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 22023 of 2006 is availing electricity supply from the respondents under L.T. Category-Ill service connection bearing No. 7335. The second respondent inspected the petitioner's premises on 28.9.2006 and found that CT meters and CT chamber seal bit No. A40033 to be in tampered condition. On opening the CT box, it was observed that R-phase CT secondary terminal S1 connection is loose and R-phase potential connection at tapping point is loose. There were also other incriminating circumstances. The second respondent came to prima facie conclusion that the petitioner resorted to pilferage of energy. A case under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Electricity Act, for brevity) was registered and power connection was disconnected. Provisional value o...
Tag this Judgment!