Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., assailing the order dated 17.1.2013 in Crl.M.P. No.2715 of 2011 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him for the offence under Section 326 IPC in C.C. No.865 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The facts leading to filing of the criminal revision case are succinctly as follows: The first respondent filed complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., on the file of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. On behalf of the complainant, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the material placed before it is prima facie sufficient to proceed against the petitioner and had taken cognizance of offence under Section 326 IPC and numbered th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. The petitioner/accused maintained the revision impugning the dismissal order of the learned Magistrate dated 26.11.2016 in Crl.MP.No.276 of 2016 in C.C.No.485 of 2013, a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, during trial sought for sending under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (for short the Act ) Exs.P1 and P2, the so called cheques to the expert to determine the age of the ink. 2.It is based on the defence that the cheques were given in the year 2007 and those were time barred for not encashed and presented for encashment within six months therefrom and those were presented by altering or tampering the dates making as if given on the respective date and month of the year 2012, after more than 6 years and thereby the documents are to be send to the handwriting expert for comparison and determination of age of the writings. The same was since opposed on various grounds of the same is a false defence plea and an afterthought and no purpose be served having not dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the proceedings of respondent No.3 in reference No.S.E/O/VJA/SAO/JAO-HT/R2.A3/D.No.616/12, dated 1-7-2012, whereby he has recategorised the electrical connection of the Unit of the petitioner at Vijayawada bearing Consumer Service No.VJA 557 from HT Category-I to HT Category-II, as illegal and arbitrary. Evolution of the petitioner company: The petitioner averred that the Government of India has taken over M/s. Esso Standard Eastern Inc., (a foreign company) under Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act 1974, to cater to the needs of public in the country of petroleum products; that in September 1974 the name of the said company was changed to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL); that thereafter some more oil companies, including M/s. Caltex Oil Refiding (India) Limited, were taken over and merged with HPCL by the Government of India; and that HPCL is a Government of India Company under Section 617 of the Companie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief; ..to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in commencing and proceeding with the road cutting and laying of pipeline work in Road No.79 and 82 of Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad from 6-5-5015 onwards and the Order of the 5th Respondent vide Lr.No.18/DB/GM(E)/PD- IV/KDWSP/PH-III/Pkg-IX/2015-16/3C dated 23-4-2015 and License No.LandO/M7/52/2015 dated 5.1.2015 granted by the 3rd Respondent to the 9th Respondent permitting blasting and road cutting in the thickly populated residential area of Road Nos.79 and 82, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad without considering and disposing of the objections/representations of the Petitioners dated 17.2.2015 and 7.5.2015, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently, direct the respondents to lay the pipeline from the vast open and uninhabit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Criminal Petition No.2894 of 2015 27-04-2015 Guguloth Jagan....Petitioner The State of Telangana,Rep. by Public Prosecutor,and another. Respondents Counsel for Petitioner : Sr.K.Venu Madhav Counsel for Respondent No.1: Addl. Public Prosecutor ?. Cases referred: 1) 2013 MLJ (Crl) 629 2) (1996) 11 SCC557HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2894 of 2015 ORDER: In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner/A.1 seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.94 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of FiRs.Class, Manthani at Karimnagar. 2) On the report given by the defacto complainant, the Police of Koyyur P.S registered a case in Crime No.8/2015 and after investigation laid charge- sheet against A.1 to A.3 for the offences under Sec.290 and 324 r/w 34 IPC. The charge-sheet allegations are that on 17.02.2015 at about 7:30 p.m, the complainant who is a resident of Ansanpalli Thanda and an auto driver found that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRP.NOs. 4578 of 2014 and batch 09-12-2014 Madapuram Maddileti Naidu & Ors. Petitioners/Accused State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana & A.P.Hyderabad & Ors. Respondents- Respondents Counsel for the petitioners:Sri N. Naveen Kumar Counsel for the respondents:Public Prosecutor R-1 dismissed for default vide CO. dt.3/1/12 : >Head Note : ?. CITATIONS : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRP.NOs. 4578 AND4579OF2014The court made the following : [Common Order follows]. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRP.NOs. 4578 AND4579OF2014COMMON ORDER : These CRPs are filed challenging the procedure adopted by II- Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni in continuing to hear and conduct SC.No.63 of 2009 despite the orders passed by Sessions Judge, Kurnool on 28/10/2014, withdrawing SC.No.537 of 2008 from the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Adoni and directing to try the same ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A.No.76 of 2004 09-12-2014 M/S.Ana Labs, Hyderabad...APPELLANT The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax...RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT :- Sr.A.V.Krishna Kaundinya COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:- Sr.S.R.Ashok ?.Cases Referred: THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A.No.76 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (per the Honble Sr.Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) This appeal is filed by the Assessee feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 31.10.2003, passed by the Hyderabad Bench A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in IT(SS).No.74/Hyd/2002. The appellant is a partnership firm. It was undertaking the activity of analyzing chemical compounds and pollutants. The firm is part of group of establishments, by name Bhagavati Ana Labs Limited. A search was conducted in the parent organization on 30.07.1998. On the basis of that, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 25.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HONBLR Sr.JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTY WRIT PETITION NO.23071 OF201405-09-2014 M/s.Ideal Detonators Private Limited .Petitioner The Government of Telangana rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and three others.Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sr.M.V.J.K.Kumar Counsel for respondents: Sr.J. Anil Kumar, Spl. Standing Counsel for CT. HEAD NOTE: ?.Citations: 1) Vol. 49 APSTJ2462) 2011 (53) APSTJ13) 55 APSTJ1374) Order in W.P.No.15384 of 2013 dated 17.09.2013 5) Judgment in TREVC No.156 of 2013 dated 02.04.2014 6) Vol. 55 APSTJ537) 135 STC2658) (2013) 10 SCC6559) (2014) 6 SCC39710) (2001) 7 SCC7111) (2002) 4 SCC23412) AIR1960SC93613) 1990 (Supp) SCC157 14) (1991).SCC13915) (1994) 1 An .W.R.450 (FB) 16) (2004)11 SCC2617) (1975) 2 SCC23218) 2001(1) ALT438(D.B) 19) (2006) 4 SCC120) (1989) 2 SCC75421) AIR1955Andhra 87 (FB) 22) (1980) 3 SCC71923) (1992) 1 SCC48924) (1999) 7 SCC29...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No.450 of 2010 24-04-2014 K.Venkata Rami Reddy and otheRs.appellants. The State of A.P...Respondent Counsel for appellants:Sr.T.Bali Reddy Counsel for Respondent : Additional Public Prosecutor. HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No.450 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per the Honble Sr.Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) A.1 to A.5 were put to trial in S.C.No.350 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, alleging that they caused the death of Vanipenta Brahma Rudra Reddy, in the afternoon of 27.12.2006 in the limits of Bandarlapalli Village of Kurnool District. Complaint with reference to the offence was submitted by the brother of the deceased PW.1, at 6.30 P.M., before the P.S.Kolimigundla. He stated that A.1, by name, Katasani Venkata Rami Reddy, was the native of Tadipatri and ever since he was mar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10570 OF200618-03-2014 Gujrat Ambuja Cement Limited, Mumbai, Rep. by its Vice-President..Petitioner Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director. and others... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.P.Chandramouli Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P.Roy Reddy : : ?.Cases referred 1. (2009) 1 SCC4752. AIR1997AP2003. AIR1968SC10284. (1996) 7 SCC3395. (2009) 4 SCC3696. (2010) 9 SCC1577. AIR1963SC3958. AIR1966SC13139. (1998) 7 SCC56910.(2001) 8 SCC44311.(2003) 5 SCC413HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10570 of 2006 ORDER: Heard Sri E.Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and the learned Advocate General, representing Sri P.Roy Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents.2. The facts in this case are undisputed. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 in the year 1984 an...
Tag this Judgment!