Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(3)ALD57; 1998(2)ALT481
ORDER1. This revision-petition is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam dated 3-6-1997 passed in I.A.No.1419/1996 in O.S.No.63/1984. The petitioner is the auction purchaser in the Court auction. He filed petition for amendment of the decree under Sections 151 and 152 of Code of Civil Procedure. But that application is dismissed by the Court below by passing the impugned order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned judgment and decree of the Court below are illegal and without jurisdiction. However, the learned Counsel for the respondents supported the judgment and decree.2. I have to note few admitted facts of this case. The respondent No.1, the Syndicate Bank, Machilipatnam Branch filed a suit in O.S.No.63/1984 for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,01,755.97 ps. The defendants remained ex parte and consequently, an ex parte decree was passed on 23-12-1994. The impugned order has extracted the entir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(5)ALD732; 2001(5)ALT274
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Two questions as regard interpretation of the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short the '1910 Act') vis-a-vis condition Nos.22.1.2 and 22.2.3. in the light of the judgment of the apex Court in Punjab S.E.B. v. Ludhiana Steels Pvt. Ltd, : AIR1993SC1355 , have been referred to this Bench by a Division Bench (Coram: Bilal Nazki and E. Dharma Rao, JJ.), which are: 1. Whether from the judgment of Supreme Court referred to above (Punjab Stale Electricity Board v. Ludhiana Steels Pvt Ltd. (supra) it can be inferred that the Supreme Court has laid down the law that the words 'In the absence of any agreement to the contrary' appearing in subsection (1) of Section 26 control subsection (6) of Section 26 as well? 2. Since the controversy with regard to controlling of sub-section (6) with the words 'In the absence of any agreement to the contrary' as found in sub-section (1) of Section 26 was not before the Supreme Court as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(3)ALT550
ORDERK.B. Siddappa, J.1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreeme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006CriLJ3988
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Common questions arise for consideration in Criminal Petition Nos. 4325 of 2003, 3701 of 2004, 3856 of 2005, and 1007 of 2003, as to whether delay, in furnishing a copy of the analyst report beyond the 'Best Before' date or the expiry date of the shelf life of the product, could, by itself, be said to have resulted in the accused being denied the opportunity of sending the sample for analysis to the Central Food/ Seeds Laboratory, and in their suffering prejudice thereby. While Crl. P. No. 4325 of 2003 and Crl. P. No. 1007 of 2003 arise under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Crl. P. No. 3701 of 2004 and Crl. No. 3856 of 2005 arise under the Seeds Act.Crl. P. No. 4325 of 2003:3. This petition is filed to have the proceedings in C.C. No. 213 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, quashed.3. Allegations in the complaint, are that the Food Inspector took samples of Lehar 7-Up, Lehar Carbonated Water and Pepsi-Cola beverag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)ALD496
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit against the revision petitioner for recovery of money. During the course of evidence, respondents filed a petition purportedly under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to receive a true copy of the letter of subrogation executed by the 2nd plaintiff in favour of the 1st plaintiff dated 8-8-1997. Rejecting the objection of the revision petitioner, the trial Court allowed that petition by the order under revision. Hence this revision.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the trial Court without keeping in view the fact that an insurer cannot without obtaining assignment from the insured file a suit against 3rd party for recovery of the money, erroneously allowed the petition, when the existence of the document sought to be received was not even mentioned during the course of cross-examination of the witnesses of the revision petitioner. It is his cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (2000)1CompLJ209(AP)
B.S. Raikote, J. 1. In all these cases, the official liquidator is claiming proportionate expenses from the other creditors like financial institutions, and in some cases, such report praying for such contribution of expenses are pending and in some cases, there is already a direction to the financial institutions to pay their share of expenses and in some cases, such financial institutions have filed applications to recall the earlier order directing them to contribute towards the expenses. In view of these circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the other secured creditors who were permitted to stand outside the winding up, are contending that they are not liable to pay or contribute towards the expenses to be incurred by the official liquidator for paper publication, etc. It is their case that the official liquidator can claim such expenses from the Central Government. But the case of the official liquidator in all these cases is that such other creditors are liable to shar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD(Cri)680; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)136; 2002CriLJ3446
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. This revision case has been directed against the order dated 8-8-2000 passed by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, in Crl. M.P. No. 1436 of 2000 in C.C. No. 386 of 1999.2. The petitioner herein has been sought to be added as an accused in the above case for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act' for brevity). Under the impugned under the C.C. has been converted into a Preliminary Registered Case (PRC), and the petitioner has been summoned to appear before the Court as an accused to face trial. The petitioner now seeks to assail the same in this revision case.3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Proddatur Urban, registered a case against two persons including the revision petitioner under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(1)ALT187; 1994LC661(AP); 1991(56)ELT718(AP)
Writ Petition No. 603 of 1989 1. The petitioner-company is a manufacturer of glass fibre products. With effect from March 16, 1976 excise duty was levied on glass fibre products for the first time under Tariff Item No. 22-F of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short the Act). Tariff Item 22-F : 'Mineral Fibres and yarn and manufacturers therefrom in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, the following, namely (1) glass fibre and yarn including glass tissues and glass wool ..... 15% ad valorem.' Under Notification No. 87/76-C.E., dated March 16, 1976 the Central Government had exempted mineral fibres and yarn and manufacturers therefrom, falling under Tariff Item No. 22-F from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. 'Notification No. 87/76 dated 16-3-1976 : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(3)ALT295; [1998]94CompCas212(AP)
P.S. Mishra, C.J. 1. The appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent which has arisen out of an application in the petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as the petition are posted together and have since been heard together. 2. Since the main writ petition has been heard and is being disposed of, no order in the appeal is required except to record that the same has become infructuous. 3. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office in the city of Hyderabad. According to its version, it approached the first respondent, Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd., Bangalore, for a short-term loan. The first respondent on January 20, 1992, informed the petitioner that its request for a short-term loan was sanctioned for a sum of Rs. 1.10 crores subject to the conditions and terms as mentioned in the letter of acceptance of the request of borrowing. According to the petitioner, it placed five lakh shares of Rs. 10 ea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2005AP260; 2005(2)ALD862
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the sixth defendant in O.S.No. 1436 of 1981 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. By judgment and decree impugned in the appeal, the Trial Court directed Respondents 2 to 4 herein and appellant herein to execute and register sale deed in respect of plaint schedule property in favour of the first respondent herein. The appellant is a subsequent purchaser of the property under registered sale deed from Ramesh Chand Khanna, the predecessor of Respondents 2 to 4. In this appeal for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 4.12.1978 in respect of property bearing Municipal No. 4-1-1 admeasuring 220 square yards situated at King Koti, Hyderabad. Her allegations in the plaint in brief are as follows. The first defendant Ramesh Chand Khanna represented in December 1978 t...
Tag this Judgment!