Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(4)ALT431:AIR2009NOC2482(A.P)(F.B).
..... decision in schmidt v. secretary of state for home affairs (1969) 2 ch d 149 which was followed by this court in maneka was followed by this court in maneka gandhi's case (supra) summarises the above principle as follows: 'where a public officer has power to deprive a person of his liberty or his property, the general principle is that ..... , namely, commissioner, hindu religious endowments v. s.l.t.s.s.s. mutt : air 1954 sc 282, jagannath ramanuj das v. state of orissa air 1954 sc 40, ratilal panachand gandhi v. state of bombay : air 1954 sc 388, hingir-rampur coal co. ltd v. state of orissa : air 1961 sc 459, h.h. sadhundra thirtha swamiar v. commissioner for hindu ..... as products of livestock for the purpose of the act. here we may refer to ram chandra kailash kumar v. state of u.p. : air 1980 sc 1124, dineshchandra jamnadas gandhi v. state of gujarat : air 1989 sc 1011, sita devi v. state of bihar : 1995 supp (1) scc 670 and i.t.c. limited v. person incharge, agriculture market committee .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(5)ALT315
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Ail these Writ Applications involving common questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. Though W.P.No. 12497 of 2001 was heard separately, since it is inter-connected to the other petitions involving similar questions of fact and law, we are inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition also by this common Judgment.3. Before we deal with the rival contentions, it may be useful to notice the prayers made in the respective writ petitions.4. W.P.Nos. 23210 of 1999 and 4350 and 4375 of 2000 are filed by Kolleru Fishermen and Agricultural Small Farmers Association, Prathikolla Lanka, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District; Dr. Ambedkar Harijan Fisherman Cooperative Society Ltd., Bogapuram village, W.G. Dt. and Dr. Ambedkar Co-operative Collective Farming Society Ltd., Bogapuram village, respectively seeking the following relief:To issue a Writ, Order or direction more especially one in the nature of mandamus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(2)ALD370; 2004(2)ALT475
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 110/73 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, is the appellant. 2. The suit was instituted for cancellation and setting aside the decree in O.S. No. 45/64 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Guntur, which was confirmed by the Judgment and decree in A.S. No. 281/69, dated 25-6-1973 by the High Court, as not binding on the plaintiff and the 8th defendant in the suit and for possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants, except the 8th defendant and for rendition of accounts as to the realization of profits from the schedule property from 29-10-1973 till date of delivery and for costs of the suit from the defendants, except the 8th defendant. 3. The respective pleadings of the parties are no doubt very elaborate. But however, since several factual details had been narrated in the respective pleadings, it will be appropriate to deal with the respective pleadings at the first instance. 4. The plaintiff h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2010(174)LC169(AP)
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Tejas Network Limited (Tejas), a Bangalore based company lodged an application on 11.1.2009 with Designated Authority (DA), for imposition of anti dumping duty (ADD, for brevity) on SDH (Synchronous Digital Hierarchy) equipment. They alleged that the product is being dumped from China PR and Israel (hereafter, subject countries) that the price reduction is high and that it being a domestic industry their performance deteriorated in terms of profits, return on investment, cash flow and growth besides leaving adverse impact on employment and wages. Acting on said application, DA issued initiation notification dated 21.4.2009 in terms of Rule 5 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of ADD on Dumped Articles and Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (the Rules, for brevity) for investigation into the existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping of SDH equipment from the subject countries. M/s. Vuppulamritha Magnetic Components Limited, Hyd...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD728; 2002(3)ALT57
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. How far and if any, shrimp culture, prawn culture and other types of aqua cultures raised both in brackish/ saline/fresh water causes any environmental pollution is the primary question involved in this batch of writ petitions.2. This batch of writ petitions can be sub-divided into two groups:- The first group of the writ petitioners are those who have taken recourse to shrimp culture, prawn culture as also, aquaculture claimingthemselves to be freehold owners of agricultural lands contending that as no law is operating in the field prohibiting or regulating their activities, the revenue or the forest officers have been acting illegally and without jurisdiction in interfering therewith by either demolishing the tanks erected for that purpose or refusing to renew and/or grant permission therefor.The second group of the writ petitioners are small agriculturists who cannot carry on their agricultural activities having regard to the fact that as in the surrounding lands...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(4)ALD130
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. This application is filed, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes, referred to in the applicant's letter dated 27.6.2006, arising out of the agreement dated 31.1.2000.2. The applicant, a registered partnership firm and a special class contractor, entered into an agreement with the respondent on 31.1.2000 for excavation and removal of overburden and production of Barytes Ore (ROM), loading, transportation, unloading and levelling at Mangampeta Barytes Project, Mangampeta Village, near Koduru Railway Station, Cuddapah District. The scheduled date of completion of the work, under the agreement of three years duration, was extended upto 8.3.2005. On completion of the work, and after receiving final payment on furnishing a 'no claim certificate', the applicant, in their letter dated 27.6.2006, consolidated their claims for Rs. 22 crores with interest thereon. They requested the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(3)ALD216; 2001(3)ALT131; 2001(135)ELT58(AP)
ORDERS.R Nayak, J 1. This writ petition is directo), against the Public Notice No.9/2001 Customs dated 3-2-2001 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Guntur (the Commissioner, for brevity), the first respondent herein. 2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Company's Act, 1956, in the year 1989 and having its registered office at Plot No.1497, J-Block, 16th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. According to the petitioner, it is involved in the business of clearing and forwarding the goods, which arrive at various ports and also those, which are meant for export to other countries.3. The petitioner-Company has been granted licence to act as Custom House Agent (CHA, for brevity) by the Commissioner vide CHA Licence No.5/91 (Regular) which has since been renewed vide C.No.VIII/13/5/99-Cus. Tech., dated 15-11-1999 and valid upto 25-11-2004. As per the licence issued, the licensee is authorised to transact business as Customs House Agent at ICD Reddipal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (2005)198CTR(AP)136; [2005]276ITR225(AP)
P.S. Narayana J.Facts in brief :1. An unprecedented novel situation arose in the State of Andhra Pradesh due to the decisions of this court holding certain portions of the excise policy of the State Government being bad, ultimately paving the way for issuance of No. DDIT/U-1(2)/2004-05, dated March 16, 2005, whereunder the Superintendents of Prohibition and Excise of the State of Andhra Pradesh were called upon by the first respondent, evidently representing the investigative agency of the Income-tax Department, to produce all the demand drafts along with the applications of the applicants within 24 hours of the delivery of the judgment of this court in a pending writ petition in the manner indicated in the said proceeding purporting to exercise such power under Section 131(1) and (1A) of the Income-tax Act 1961, hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience. The said action is challenged by writ petitioners Nos. 1 to 4. The first petitioner is M/s. A. P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(6)ALT1
ORDERJ. Chelameswar, J.1. These four writ appeals arise out of a common order dated 7-7-2005 of a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.18357 of 2004,407,426 and 2471 of 2005. The parties are the same in the last three of the above mentioned four writ petitions whereas in the 1st writ petition only five of the said parties are parties.2. The facts leading to this litigation are as follows:The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') in the last of the above three writ petitions i.e., Palle Sitaramulu Goud and the respondents 4 to 8 in the above mentioned three writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents') were elected as members of the Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies of Shameerpet Mandal on 3-7-2001. Under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'), Panchayats a defined expression under Article 243(d) at various levels as contemplated under Article 243B are created. One of them being Mandal Parishad defined under sub-sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(6)ALD582; 2005(6)ALT364
..... lies on state to sustain its action by showing 'life and liberty' are being affected in accordance with law which is not capricious and irrational (see e.p. royappa, maneka gandhi and mithu v. state of punjab 0065/1983 : 1983crilj811 ). if the legislation is impeached as violating religious rights, again the law maker has to plead and prove that restrictions on ..... such action is arbitrary, capricious and irrational. in e.p. royappa v. state of tamil nadu : (1974)illj172sc (for short, e.p. royappa) and maneka gandhi v. union of india : [1978]2scr621 (for short, maneka gandhi), p.n. bhagwati, j (as his lordship then was) ruled that if an administrative action or legislative action is irrational in the sense it lacks the .....
Tag this Judgment!