Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2009]150CompCas390(AP)
ORDERNooty Ramamohana Rao, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Regional Director of the ESI Corporation, Hyderabad questioning the validity of the notice of admission/rejection of proof of debt passed by the Official Liquidator in Form No. 69 on 30.9.2008, admitting a sum of Rs. 74,366.54 ps as an unsecured debt of M/s. Kera Sinter Limited towards the appellant corporation. The Official Liquidator rejected the rest of the claim in a sum of Rs. 69,863.46 ps.2. By an order dated 28.6.1999, this court answered the reference made by BIFR in RCC No. 9 of 1992 and ordered for winding up of M/s. Kera Sinter Limited. By virtue of the provisions contained under Section 449 of the Companies Act, the Official Liqudiator attached to this court became the liquidator of the said company. During the course of winding up proceedings of the company, by an order passed on 10.8.2005 made in CA No. 633 of 2005, this court permitted the Official Liquidator to invite claims from the creditors of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1964AP350
Ananthanarayana Ayyar, J.1. In Session Case No. 27 of 1962, the learned Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry convicted the sole accused, Kondepudi Ramam of an offence Under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, He also recorded in his judgment as follows:'I strongly feel that this is a fit case for recommending to the State Government Under Section 27, Madras Children Act (IV of 1920) for orders of the State Government, is no punishment under the provisions of the Madras Children Act would suffice. The accused shall be Kept in safe custody in the Central Jail at Rajahmundry and the case shall be reported for the orders of the State Government to be passed as required Under Section 27 of the Madras Children Act, 1920'.Accordingly the accused has continued to be In the Central Jail at Rajahmundry. No orders have been passed so far by the Government Under Section 27 of the Madras Children Act, 192O. But, the accused fiied this appeal against his conviction and sentence.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(4)ALT674
Goda Raghuram, J.1. Heard Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narsu, learned Counsel appearing for Mr. S. Jagadish, the learned Counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 2 to 3 and Mr. M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent.2. The 32 petitioners assail the order bearing reference No. VI/502/99 dated 16.10.2003 the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent - the Commissioner Appeals in the O/o the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, AP, Hyderabad,. The revision was preferred to the 1st respondent by the 4th respondent under Section 14-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956 (for short 'the Inams Abolition Act, 1956'), aggrieved by the appellate order of the 2nd respondent in Inam Appeal No. 1/89 conforming the order of the 3rd respondent dated 31.07.1989 in RC. No. C1/88. The revision was allowed.3. The 4th respondent had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Inams Abo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1990]78STC132(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939 - originally enacted as Madras Act 5 of 1939 and subsequently made applicable to the entire State of Andhra Pradesh - provides for levy of duty on certain sales and consumption of electrical energy by licensees in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 2 defines certain expressions occurring in the Act. 'Energy' is defined to mean electrical energy [clause (a)]. 'Licensee' is defined to mean : '(i) any person including a company or a local authority licensed under Part II of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, to supply energy, or any person including a company or a local authority who has obtained the sanction of the State Government under section 28 of that Act to supply energy; (ii) the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board constituted under section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948; (iii) the National Thermal Power Corporation or any other corporation engaged in the business of supplying energy' [clause (b)]. 2. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(4)ALD803; 2003(4)ALT750
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The petitioners invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the notification dated 4-6-2002, whereunder the Government of India fixed the policy parameters for 7th and 8th pricing periods commencing from 1st July, 1997 and 1st April, 2000 respectively, as unconstitutional and ultra vires the powers of the respondents. The petitioners also pray for issuance of a consequential declaration declaring the letter dated 21st August, 2002 for Plant-I and letter dated 17th September, 2002 for Plant-II issued by the respondents as illegal, void and unenforceable. Factual Matrix: 2. The first petitioner herein is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The company has set up a factory for the purpose of manufacture of Urea at Kakinada, East Godavari District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 3. The industrial licence obta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(5)ALT547
Bilal Nazki, A.C.J.1. There are six writ petitions and four writ appeals. The writ appeals arise out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge in one of the writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 3179 of 2005.2. The bone of contention in all these cases is a Memo issued by the State Government being Memo No. 10680/EC. 2/2004, dated 14-12-2004. Some of the writ petitioners support the Memo, whereas in some other writ petitions, this Memo has been challenged. Controversy revolves around this Memo. Since all the writ petitions and writ appeals raise same questions of law and fact, they were heard together and are being disposed of together by this common judgment.3. The impugned Memo communicated a decision of the government to its functionaries i.e. Director of Technical Education, Secretary, A.P. State Council of Higher Education and the Registrars of the Universities that it had decided not to consider establishment of new Engineering colleges in the State during the Academic year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(5)ALD851; 2001(6)ALT209
B. Subhashan Reddy, J. 1. At issue, is the validity of the action of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in declaring the property of the petitioners as a slum area in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956. 2. The notifications were issued and gazetted differently for different areas owned by the petitioners. While in WP No. 19117 of 1987, notification was issued on 14-10-1987 and gazetted on 5-11-1987, in WP No. 673 of 1992 the notification was issued on 4-12-1991, which was gazetted on 26-12-1991. In the said writ petitions, the validity of the above notifications is assailed as being unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Insofar as WP No. 9668 of 1987 is concerned, a declaration is sought, for that the action of respondents 1 and 2 in issuing slum area occupancy certificates to the tenants of the petitioners in premises bearing Municipal Nos.5-4-51 to 5-4-108 and 5-4-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(6)ALD713; 2001(6)ALT271
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. These writ petitions involving common questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order. FACTS: 2. We may refer to the fact of the matter involved in Writ Petition No. 18126 of 2001 for the purpose of deciding their cases. 3. The petitioner therein appeared for EAMCET (Medical) 2001- 2002 and secured 1195 rank in the overall State ranking. He belongs to Backward Class 'A' community and he being a local candidate of Osmania University, the rank obtained by him in the University was 5 and therefore he has to get admission into 1st year M.B.B.S. course. He fell ill from 15-7-2001 to 31-7-2001 and undergone operation on 1-8-2001 and he was treated as inpatient up to 25-8-2001. Counselling for 1st year M.B.B.S., course was scheduled to be held from 30-8-2001 to 8-9-2001. When he approached Osmania Medical College so as to obtain application form, he was informed that the last date for submission of applications wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(6)ALD555; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)226; 2000(6)ALT438
ORDERM.S. Liberhan, CJ.1. Facts and questions of law raised in these petitions can be regarded as common questions of law. The petitions are being disposed of by common order.2. The basic factual questions argued be noted albeit with brevity.Facts :3. The State of Andhra Pradesh appointed Sri Justice P. Ramachandra Raju, a retired Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court as Commission of Inquiry (hereinafter referred to as 'Raju Commission') on 10-9-1996 to examine. (A) Whether disproportionately large number of benefits have gone to a particular sub-caste of Scheduled Castes; and (B) If so, to indicate all such steps as are necessary and required to be taken to ensure that the above benefits are equally distributed amongst the various sub-castes of Scheduled Castes. The State made reservation of 15% in appointment in services and admission in educational institutions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Raju Commission concluded that a large number of benefits of the reservati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(6)ALD718; 1999(6)ALT174
ORDER1. Both these writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law. Hence I am disposing of both of them by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, f will first deal with WP No.15544 of 1989 and in view of the legal position ascertained in this writ petition, I propose to dispose of other writ petition in WP No. 5684 of 1988.2. WP No.15544 of 1989 is filed by a non-tribal being aggrieved by the order dated8-3-1989 passed by the Agent to Government, Khammam on CMA No.1 of 1989. By the impugned order, the appellate Court confirmed the order of the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Paloncha dated 20-5-1988 passed on Case No 417/88/PNK. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that both the impugned orders are illegal and without jurisdiction. He submitted that the petitioner purchased the land on 11-3-1963 through an unregistered sale deed and eversince he lias been in possession. He further submitted that the said sale deed dated 11-3-1963 wa...
Tag this Judgment!