Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965AP457
Venkatesam, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, in O. S. No. 8 of 1958. The facts necessary for the determination of the questions arising in this case are as follows : - The plaintiff J. Kuppanna Chetty, Ambati Ramayya Chetty and Company of Kadiri, is a firm carrying on business as groundnut and mundy merchants. They took on lease a groundnut decorticating factory at Kadiri, known by the name of Vittal Seshappa Chetty Sons, Groundnut Factory. The factory was under the management of one of the partners, Kuppanna Chetty. Vittan Subbayya Chetty, son of Seshayya Chetty was in arrears of Income-tax relating to the year 1951-52 and 1952-53 to the extent of Rs. 20,921-10-0 and Rs. 9,035-4-0, respectively. The Income-tax Officer issued a certificate under S. 46 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to the Collector of Bellary for realisation of the said arrears. The Tahsildar, Kadiri, was directed by the Collector to attach the said facto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1992AP19; 1991(3)ALT173
ORDERM.N. Rao, J.1. As all the writ petitions are interconnected, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. By these writ petitions the constitutionality of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act 10 of 1971 and Rule 22(C) issued in G.O.Ms. No. 220, Food and Agriculture, dated 20th March, 1991 and Rule 22(A)(3)(a) issued in G.O.Ms. No. 224, Food and Agriculture, dated 20th March, 1991, are challenged.3. In the year 1987 elections were held to the Managing Committees of the Co-operative Societies in the State. The term of office of the managing committees at that time was five years. By an Ordinance issued on 30th June, 1990, the term of the managing committees was reduced to three years, as a consequence of which, almost all the managing committees ceased to exist. In order to fill the void, the Government issued various orders appointing Officers as persons-in-charge. Challenging the same, a batch of writ petitions, W.Ps. Nos. 8783 of 1990 and batch, was filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2006AP182; 2006(2)ALT1
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The Petitioner filed O.S.No.20 of 2000 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil judge, at Bodhan, against the respondent, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. She pleaded that she is the daughter of the respondent. In his written-statement, the respondent disputed the very relationship, apart from denying the other allegations, made by the petitioner. The trial Court framed an independent issue, touching upon the relationship. The petitioner filed I.A.No.233 of 2005 for reframing of the said issue. The application was resisted by the respondent. Through order dt.5-10-2005, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application. Hence, this revision2. Sri Balraj Bodhankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue, which was framed by the trial Court, is in such a form, that it would require the petitioner herein to prove the negative. He contends that since the denial, which gave rise to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2008]146CompCas266(AP)
S. Ananda Reddy, J.1. By this company petition filed by the petitioner, viz., Spectrum Power Generation Ltd., under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 79 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeks approval of the scheme of arrangement between the petitioner-company and its secured creditors and members, under which, the debts as well as the capital was proposed to be restructured.2. It is stated that the petitioner-company was incorporated under the pro visions of the Companies Act, as per the Certificate of Incorporation granted by the Registrar of Companies dated October 26, 1992, with its registered office at Plot No. 231, 8-2-293/82/A/231, Road No. 36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500 033. The authorized share capital of the company, as on March 31, 2006, is Rs. 235,00,00,000 divided into 23,50,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the company, as on March 31, 2006, is Rs. 176,47,68,900 divided...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ALT611
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court issued rule nisi on 19-4-2007.2. Counter affidavits, additional affidavits and reply affidavits were filed and written arguments also were submitted in addition to the submissions made by the respective Counsel in open Court. Certain subsequent events also were brought to the notice of the Court and apart from the material papers initially placed, additional material papers as well had been placed before this Court.3. M/s. Ghanta Infrastructure Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, represented by its Director Sri M. Raghuveer, filed the present Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings ARG-II/PJ/FY07/04568 dated 12-12-2006 and the consequential proceedings ARG 1/PJ/FY07/04730 dated 22-12-2006 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to accept the bid of the petitioner in respect of the bus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2008]146CompCas254(AP); [2008]86SCL238(AP)
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. This application is filed by the A.P. State Financial Corporation to permit them to appropriate Rs. 50 lakhs, deposited in Andhra Bank pursuant to the orders of this Court in C.A. No. 1680 of 2004, subject to enforcement of the dues of the workmen by the Official Liquidator.C.A. No. 1680 of 2004 was filed by the Applicant-Corporation seeking confirmation of the sale of the land and buildings, mortgaged in favour of the Applicant- Corporation by the company in liquidation, for Rs. 50 lakhs. Both the Applicant and the A.P.I.D.C. held first charge over the properties of the company in liquidation. This Court, by order in C.A. No. 1680 of 2004, directed that the amounts, realized on the sale of the lands and buildings, be kept in interest bearing deposits and that distribution of the proceeds would be subject to further orders of Court. The applicant finalized the highest bidder, deposited the amount realized on the sale of lands and buildings of Rs. 50 lakhs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
INTRODUCTION Hyderabad with its twin city of Secunderabad apart from being the Capital of Andhra Pradesh is also famous for its social and cultural history, pearls, pharma and software companies besides being the home of more than seven million population. It is a fast developing sprawling mega city with fast track growth initiatives and - as rumoured; a place for greedy and fortune hunters to make quick buck with speculation, political lobbying and subtle methods of cheating. The growth mine is not only gold mine for such people but a destiny for millions in search of a humble avocation to eke out decent livelihood. The city with less than a million population half a century ago is now spread over 10,000 square kilometers. In addition to irreversible environmental problems, it has also thrown up the problems of immense concern in relation to urban utilities, transport, mobility, movement and day-to-day life. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) and Hyderabad Metro Development Aut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1.The petitioner is the son of the detenue Smt. Polisetti Lakshmi, wife of late Kondaiah, resident of Ayyappanagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. He has filed this Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Habeaus Corpus directing to set the detenue at liberty by setting aside the order of detention made by the 2nd Respondent-District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, East Godavari District in File Rc.No.C1(M)/496/2010, dated 22.06.2010, as confirmed by the State Government by orders in G.O.Rt.No.4063, General Administration (Law and Order.II) Department, dated 13.08.2010.2.Activities alleged against the detenu as set out in the order of detention, dated 22.06.2010 are: The detenu was involved in committing the offences of possession, transport, sale of illicitly distilled liquor in contravention of Section 8 (3) read with Section 7-A of the A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1997 and also abating the commission of the said activities; that the said activities are directly cau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: V.V.S. Rao, J. PROLOGUE In this group of seven writ petitions, the issue is whether the notification issued by Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board (the Wakf Board, for brevity) declaring certain lands as wakf properties is illegal and whether the allotment of those lands by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) and further allotment by the latter to third party industries is not illegal. Three writ petitions, being W.P.Nos.17192, 20614 and 20372 of 2007 challenge allotment of land and the remaining are filed for invalidation of the Wakf Board notification issued in 2006. The two questions need to be addressed without ignoring the fact that persons interested in the wakf have already filed suits before the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal (the Wakf Tribunal) under the Wakf Act, 1995 (the Wakf Act, for brevity) and are pending for trial. The battle line between the group opposing the wakf board’s decision and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
(The petitioner prays that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings ADC Order No.2169 in appeal Nos. BV/94/2010-11 dated 07-10-2011 confirming the order of penalty dated 14-10-2011 passed by the 1st respondent for the year 2009-10/CST/Penalty as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.) (The petitioner prays that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings ADC Order No.2169 in appeal Nos. BV/70/2009-10 dated 07-10-2011 confirming the order of penalty dated 05-10-2009 passed by the 1st respondent for the year 2008-09/CST/Penalty as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and co...
Tag this Judgment!