Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1991AP141
ORDERJeevan Reddy, J. 1. These Writ Appeals are preferred against a common judgment of a learned single Judge, G. Radha-krishna Rao, J., partly allowing a batch of writ petitions filed by a number of industries. The writ petitioners are consumers of electricity. They fall in the category of High Tension (Industrial) Consumers. They challenged the revision of tariffs in B.P. Ms. No. 671, dated 10-6-1987 (with effect from 15-7-1987), as well as the further revision of tariffs in B.P. Ms. No. 353, dated 15-4-1989 (given effect from 1-6-1989). Both the respondent-Electricity Board and the writ-petitioners have filed appeals against the judgment of the learned single Judge.2. The A. P. State Electricity Board is constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 49 empowers the Board to classify/categorize the consumers having regard to the several factors mentioned in sub-section (2) thereof, and to fix different tariffs for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965AP337
Basi Reddy, J. (1) This second appeal was referred to a Division Bench by one of us, because two decisions of the Punjab High Court in Firm Sahib Dayal Bakshi Ram v. Asst. Custodian Evacuees' property, and in Custodian General of Evacuee Property v. Harnam Singh, , and another decision of the Allahabad High Court in Lord Krishna Sugar Mills ltd., Saharanpur v. Asst. Custodian, Saharanpur, : AIR1958All396 which the courts below purported to follow, seemed to have taken an erroneous view of section 48 of the administration of Evacuee Property Act, (1950), (hereinafter called the Act') in holding that the provisions of that section did not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. The question, however, has now been decided by the Supreme Court in Abdul Karim v. Dy. Custodian General : [1964]6SCR837 and in the light of that decision, the judgment of the Punjab and Allahabad High Courts referred to above, must be held to have been wrongly decided . This position is rightly conceded by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1978]112ITR512(AP)
Chennakesav Reddy, J.1. In each of these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ, the petitioner is one P. N, Balasubramanian, Chairman and Managing Director, Barium Chemicals Limited, Kamavaram, Khammam District. He has filed these four writ petitions seeking to quash the orders of the Income-tax Officer, Khammam, passed under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, making the best judgment assessments for the income-tax assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71.2. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are not of an all too common kind and unfold a bewildering range and variety of evasive methods adopted by an assessee in the process of assessment proceedings. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the Income-tax Officer, District VIII(9), New Delhi. He submitted his income-tax returns for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 to the Income-tax Officer, District V1II(9), New Delhi, under Section 139(1) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963AP394
Venkatesam, J.1. These five second appeals arise out of suits filed by dealers in food grains of Nellore District, hereinafter called the dealers, against the State of Andhra represented by the District Collector, Nellore, for recovery of certain amounts due to them. These five suits and two others were disposed of by a common judgment by the District/Munsif of Kanigiri, who decreed all the suits. The appeals against his decision preferred by the State of Andhra were also disposed of by a single judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Kavali, who reversed the decision of the that Court, and dismissed the suits. These second appeals are preferred by the dealers against that judgment.2. The facts briefly are as follows:The appellants-plaintiffs were appointed as wholesalers for Kanigiri Taluq under the scheme of State Trading in Food Grains, adopted by the State of Madras in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (XXIV of 1946), hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961AP483
Seshachalapati, J. 1. These three connected appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the decision of Sanjeevarao Naidu, J. L.P.A. 77/60 and L.P.A. 107/59 arise out of the learned Judge's decision in A. S. No. 252 of 1957. L.P.A. No. 101 of 1959 arises out of the order of the learned Judge in C.M.P. No. 7142 of 1959 in A, S. No. 252 of 1957.2. We will first deal with L.P.A. 77/60 which arises out of A. S. 252/57. That appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Anantapur in O.P. No. 39/52 converted as O. S. 23/56. It will be necessary to state briefly the facts connected with that suit.3. The 1st respondent before us, Tharigopala Pedda Narayanappa had certain dealings with the 'Rayalaseema Bank Ltd.' (appellant before us), in respect of which the Bank claimed that a sum of Rs. 7560/- was due from the 1st respondent. The dispute was referred to Meduthula Narayanappa, the second respondent as sole arbitrator, on 2-9-1949. The arbit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(5)ALD176
ORDER1. One Sri Sharif Iqbal Hussain Ahmad, petitioner herein filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the official respondent Nos.1 to 3 to restrain the un-official respondent No.4 from constructing the first floor on the premises bearing No. 11-40-2 situated at Pulaparthi Street, Vijayawada, which is in violation of the zoning regulations and municipal bye-laws and to pass any other order or orders in the interest of justice.2. This Court by enter dated 13-5-1997 while admitting the writ petition, passed an order in WP MP No.12885 of 1995 directing the 4th respondent to stop further construction. This Court also passed orders in WPMP No. 12886 of 1997 directing the Commissioner, Vijayawada, Guntur and Tenali Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as UDA) to see that the unofficial 4th respondent does not violate the regulations or the building bye-laws. In WPMP No.12885 of 1985, as per the orders of this Court, it is seen that notice to the 4th resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(6)ALT628; I(2006)DMC607
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri B. Devadas, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner. The matter is coming up for orders of this Court on an objection taken by the office while numbering the O.P. filed by the petitioner under Section 10-A(1) read with Section 8 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience).2. This O.P is presented before this Court praying for dissolution of marriage on the strength of an agreement dated 26-11-1984. It is stated that the elders had settled the matter and in pursuance thereto, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. The office raised an objection 'it should be stated how this petition can be presented in the High Court directly without approaching District Court in view of the provisions of Amendment Act (Act 51/2001) which came into force from 3-10-2001'. It was also pointed out 'petition may be filed in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it as per ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(6)ALD376; 2000(6)ALT551
ORDERN.Y. Hanumathappa, J.1. Since the question involved in all the above writ appeals are common, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. All the writ appeals are filed challenging the order of the learned single Judge of this Court in WP No. 10804 of 1996, dated 14-11-1997 allowing the writ petition.3. WP No. 10804 of 1996 was filed by 62 petitioners who were shown as respondent Nos. 1 to 62 in all the writ appeals seeking for the relief of writ of mandamus directing the Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment, A.P. Circle, Secunderabad to issue sanction of lay out plan applied for by the writ petitioners in respect of Ac.8.00 ofland in S.No.170 (part) of Tokatta village, Secunderabad Mandal and in conformity with the orders passed by this Court in WPNo.4250 of 1994 dated 30-9-1994 and WPNo.6012 of 1995, dated 6-12-1995. The Defence Estate Officer, A.P. Circle, Secunderabad; the Director of Defence Estate, Southern Command, Pune; Syed Sadiq Ali Khan; M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1986]60CompCas568(AP)
Kodandaramayya, J.1. Among numerous question of law, two interesting company law problems are raised in this civil appeal by Sri T. Veerabhadraiah, the learned counsel for the appellants : (1) Whether a conveyance is necessary to vest the property of a firm when the same was converted into a company (2) Similarly whether such conveyance is necessary to claim title by the company in respect of property acquired by the promoter before its incorporation 2. A considerable time and lengthy debate had taken place and, hence, we are impelled to state this in the forefront. Now, we shall state the facts. 3. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 36 of 1969 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayawada, are the appellants in this appeal. The suit is laid for eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule site after declaring the suit lease as duly terminated, removing the structures and deliver vacant possession of the same. The plaintiffs are grandsons of one Vali Subbarayudu and it is ave...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1955AP227; 1955CriLJ1316
ORDER(1) This Revision case is against the order of acquittal passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Peddapuram.(2) A complaint was filed by the petitioner against four persons under S. 494, Penal Code, read with S. 4 (2) of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act (VI of 1949) on the allegations taht the first accused took a second wife while his marriage with the complainant's daughter was subsisting, that the second wife is the daughter of the 4th accused and that the accused 2 to 4 actually assisted the 1st accused in committing this offence. A number of witnesses were examined for the prosecution to prove both the marriages.(3) The main plea of the accused was that the complaint was incompetent in that it offended against the provisions of S. 198, Criminal P. C., Agreeing with this objection, the lower court acquitted all the accused. This revision is directed against that Order. (4) The main point for consideration in this case is whether the view of the Sub-Divisio...
Tag this Judgment!