Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-07-2005
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD145
C.V. Ramulu, J.1. The only substantial question of law that falls for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the appellate Court was justified in refusing to consider the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 636, General Administration (Accommodation-A) Department, dated 29-12-1983 on the premise that the said issue has already been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in M. Sreeramulu v. Tahera Yousuf Kadri : 2000(3)ALD173 (FB), and in not examining the validity of the said G.O. in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra : AIR1998SC602 .2. A few facts, which are relevant, may be noticed as under:3. The appellant is the defendant/ tenant. Respondent No. 1/landlord filed a suit in O.S. No. 3756 of 1997 on the file of the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property, for arrears of rent and for future mesne profits. It was the case respondent-plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-22-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)ALD780; 2005(2)ALT653
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.Introduction :1. The manufacturing or of supplying by wholesale or of both or of selling by wholesale or by retail, any liquor in the State of Andhra Pradesh is governed by Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act'), and the grant of licences for the import, export, transport and sale of Indian liquors, and foreign liquors is regulated by the Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (for short 'the ILFL Rules'). The Government of Andhra Pradesh has been taking policy decisions from time to time enunciating liquor policy of the State every year. Section 17 of the Act provides that the Government may grant a licence for a fixed period subject to such conditions as they may deem fit to impose to any person at any place a lease or licence, or both for the exclusive privilege of manufacturing or of supplying by wholesale or of both; or by selling by wholesale or by retail; or by manufacturing or of supplying by wholesale or of both and of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-16-2005
Reported in : 2005(3)ALD137; 2005(4)ALT196
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Writ Petition No. 7639 of 2004 is filed to issue a writ of mandamus, seeking the following reliefs:(1) To declare Bye-law No. 3 relating to membership i.e., Article 3 of Articles of Association of the 4th respondent society as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short the Act, 2001);(2) To direct the Registrar of Societies to direct 4th respondent society to amend its Bye-law No. 3 (Article 3) relating to membership, so as to bring it in conformity with the Act, 2001 by incorporating the eligibility criteria and scrutinize the membership applications of the petitioners with reference to such criteria and to admit them as members;(3) To declare the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in not exercising their jurisdiction vested in and directing the petitioners to approach other authorities under Section 23 of the Act, 2001 as illegal and to set-aside the latter dated 3-4-2004 issued by the Registrar of So...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-07-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)ALD(Cri)751; 2005CriLJ4593
M. Venkateswara Reddy, J.1. A bizarre incident that shook the State in general and the student community in particular occurred on 21 -6-2004 when the sun was blazing in the mid-sky, in a temple of education run after the name of the Goddess of Knowledge at Vijayawada 'Sharada P.G. College.' The scene of offence was a class room (Room No. 2 of the said college), where the final year M.C.A. students facing viva voce examination were waiting for their turn. A final year M.C.A. girl student by name Sri Lakshmi, who had to face viva voce test, when she was fully absorbed in reading, sitting on a Bench in the said class room, was brutally hacked to death from behind. This astoundingly gruesome act was committed in the very presence of the classmates of the victim. The appellant herein, one Y. Manohar (A.1), a classmate of the victim girl is the alleged perpetrator of the shocking crime. He faced trial as A. 1 in Sessions Case No. 209 of 2004, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-20-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)ALD544; [2005]142STC52(AP)
S. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This batch of writ petitions are filed by the dealers, who are registered under the provisions of both the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the APGST Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) and carrying on the business, aggrieved by the action of the first Appellate Authority in refusing to entertain the appeals on the ground that they are barred by limitation. The petitioners are, therefore, seeking writ of mandamus directing the first Appellate Authority to take the appeals on file and decide the same on merits without going into the question of limitation or alternatively to direct the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessments and receive the certificates to be filed by the petitioners and grant necessary relief in accordance with law.2. All the petitioners have filed their returns for different assessment years, in pursuance of which, assessments were made by the assessing authorities. As the claims with ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-07-2005
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD823; 2006(1)ALT661; (2006)IILLJ448AP; 2007(1)SLJ459(NULL)
ORDERJ. Chelameswar, J.I had the advantage of going through the judgments rendered by both my learned brothers. Both of them arrived at the same conclusion, but for slightly different reasons.I agree with the conclusion reached.P.S. Narayana, J.1. I prefer to add a couple of sentences of my own while agreeing with the conclusion of my learned brother. The importance of a disciplinary enquiry or departmental enquiry in Service Jurisprudence need not be overemphasized. In view of the importance of the question involved in the present matter, the Division Bench thought it fit to refer the matter thus inviting a decision on the said point. The learned Counsel on record made elaborate submissions in relation to the language employed in Rule 19 of the A. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963, and Rule 20 of the amended Rules of 1991. Certain submissions were made even in relation to the meaning of 'cause to be drawn' and also incidentally Rule 21 of the 1991 Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-06-2005
Reported in : 2005(4)ALD357
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J 1. The batch of writ petitions are filed assailing the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad passed in O.A. Nos. 1374, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1511, 1512, 1513 and 1514 of 2003 and O.A. No. 619 of 2004. The writ petitioners have challenged the charged memos dated 22.8.2003 issued to them individually by the disciplinary authority. The writ petitioners questioned the respective charge memos before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench by riling individual Original Applications. The learned Tribunal dismissed O.A.Nos. 1374 of 2003 and Batch by a common order dated 13.7.2004. The learned Tribunal by a separate order dated 22.7.2004 also dismissed O.A. No. 619 of 2004 on the ground that the same was connected case to O.A. No. 1374 of 2003 and Batch.2. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.3. Facts of the case, in brief, leading to filing of these w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-26-2005
Reported in : 2005(5)ALD194; 2006(3)ALT577
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. For the academic year 2005-2006, entrance examination for Super Speciality (2nd Post Graduate) Courses was held on 29-5-2005 by the University of Health Sciences, which was constituted under the Andhra Pradesh University of Health Sciences Act, 1986. In the notification issued by the University of Health Sciences, the conditions for admission to the Super Speciality (Second PG) Courses in the Medical Colleges for the said academic year were laid down; the seats in each of the super speciality were also specified along with the college or institute where they are available. Prospectus for admission to Super Speciality (2nd PG) Courses indicated the seats available under non-State wide and the seats available under the State-wide. Dr. J.A.L Ranganath-petitioner No. 1 did his MBBS (1st degree) from Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences (AIMS) Bellur, University of Mysore, Karnataka and MD (General Medicine) from Kasturiba Medical College (KMC) Mang...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-21-2005
Reported in : IV(2005)BC324; [2005]126CompCas426(AP); [2005]64SCL299(AP)
S. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This company petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 433(f), read with Section 439(1)(c) and (3) of the Companies Act, 1956 praying :(a) That M/s. Kobashi Machine Tools Private Limited, respondent-company be wound up under the orders and directions of this hon'ble court and the official liquidator attached to this hon'ble court be appointed as liquidator of the company with its affairs, properties, books of account, vouchers, papers, etc., with all powers under Section 457 of the Companies Act, 1956 ;(b) That pending the hearing and disposal of the petition, the official liquidator be appointed as provisional liquidator of the company under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956 with all powers, under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 ;(c) That the cost of this petition and of the order to be made thereon be provided for.2. It is stated that the first respondent-company--Kobashi Machine Tools Private Limited, (for short 'the company') was incorp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-05-2005
Reported in : 2005(6)ALD873
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. In W.P. No. 6610 of 2005 the petitioner seeks refund of Rs. 44,95,629/-, with interest at 24% per annum and costs, and for return of the bank guarantees furnished by them for Rs. 49.80 lakhs, consequent to the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Branch, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as CESTAT), dated 2.11.2004.2. CEA No. 42 of 2005, is preferred by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, against the very same order passed by the CESTAT, in Appeal No. C/st/90 and 103/ 2004 in C/213 and 235/2004, dated 2.11.2004. As it was contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs did not have the authority to prefer an appeal to this Court, against the order of CESTAT, the appeal in C.E.A(SR) No. 2340 of 2005 is preferred by the Commissioner of Customs.3. The writ petition and both the appeals are based on the same order, of the CESTAT dated 2.11.2004, and are therefore disposed of by a common order. Reference to parties shall, ...
Tag this Judgment!