Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003LC540(AP); 2003(153)ELT281(AP)
ORDER1. These writ petitions were taken together for hearing and are disposed of by this common order.2. W.P. No. 1544 of 1998 has been filed by Medwin Hospital challenging an order dated 25-11-1997 withdrawing the exemption granted in respect of the customs duty. The main ground of challenge is that the impugned order is contrary to the policy of the Government of India spelled out through notification No. 64/88, dated 1-3-1988.3. W.P. No. 3109 of 1998 has been filed by Godavari CT Scanning Centre challenging the proceedings of 1st Respondent dated 7-1-1998. By this order also the exemption certificate dated 16-6-1994 granted to the petitioner in respect of the customs duty was withdrawn.4. W.P. No. 1533 of 1998 has been filed by M/s. Medinova Diagnostic Services challenging an order dated 19-12-1997 by which also the exemption granted in respect of the customs duty was withdrawn.5. W.P. No. 33257 of 1997 has been filed by Kailash Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Centre. In this writ pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)ALT271
ORDERVilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.1. The present revision is preferred by the legal heirs of landlady who were arrayed as respondents in R.A. No. 268 of 2001.2. The landlady had filed RC No. 66 of 1998 against the respondent/tenant herein for eviction on the ground that she requires the suit premises for her fourth son who is a doctor and who was arrayed as petitioner No. 6 in RC. The requirement pleaded is one for additional accommodation under Section 10(3) (c) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The landlady died pending RC and her husband and sons and daughters were brought on record as legal representatives as respondents 2 to 13 in RC. The building in which the schedule premises is situate comprises four mulgies bearing Nos. 1-8-32/61/22/1 to 4. The schedule premises in question bears municipal No. 1-8-32/61/22/2 and the monthly rent is Rs. 550/-. The respondent/tenant is carrying on business of automobile batteries and the dimens...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)ALT725; 2002CriLJ4009
1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying 'to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring Section 13(1) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 16, 21, proviso to Article 309, Article 311 and also Article 300A of the Constitution of India and also declare Cl. 4 (d) of Memo No.700/SC/D/88-4 dated 13-2-1989 issued by the 2nd respondent herein as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional, if necessary by declaring Sections 5, 6, 8, 12, 18 and 36 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and violating the basic structure and issue the consequential direction to the respondents to drop all proceedings pursuant to the F.I.R. No.10/RC-NLR/95, dated 19-09-1995 initiated by the respondents herein bef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1968]70ITR812(AP)
Seshachalapati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order to quash the notice dated 30-11-1962 issued to the petitioners by the respondent, the Additional Gift Tax Officer, Guntur. The Petitions 1, 2, 5 and 6 are the sons and Petitioners 3 and 4, the daughters of late G. V. Srinivasarao, who was a leading Advocate in Guntur. Sri Srinivasa Rao acquired considerable properties. On 4-3-1958 Sri Srinivasa Rao gifted certain properties to his daughters, Petitioners 3 and 4 of the value of Rs. 10,000. By an affidavit dated 26-3-1958, he declared his intention to treat his self-acquired properties referred to in the affidavit as properties belonging to the family consisting of himself and his four sons. On 27-3-1958, he effected a partition of the said properties between himself and his sons by a registered instrument.2. On information received of certain dispositions by late Srinivasarao...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003ACJ1087; 2001(6)ALD821
ORDER1. Marri Yadamma, widow of the deceased Janardhan Reddy, and her two minor daughters, filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay monetary compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for the untimely death of her husband as a result of constitutional tort committed by the respondents in not providing accurate medical treatment to save the life which resulted in negligent death of her husband. 2. Consequent upon Rule Nisi issued by this Court, Sri Chinlakayala RamakrishnaRao, Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Secunderabad and Dr. M. Meher Prasad, who treated the deceased during the period of confinement in jail filed counter-affidavits. 3. The facts in nutshell are that late Janardhan Reddy was arrested by the Ibrahimpatnam Police on the complaint that he committed theft alongwith some other persons and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ibrahimpatnam, on 10-7-1994 who remanded him in Crime Nos.76 of 1993 and 116 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(6)ALD643
ORDER1. Questioning the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in CMA No. 2 of 1995 dated 20-7-2000 both the tenant and the landlady filed CRP No. 4138 of 2000 and CRP No. 3044 of 2001 respectively to the extent the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority went against their interest. 2. As both the revision petitions relate to same mulgi bearing No. 10-5-40, Seshapriya Street, Chittoor, they can be disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The parties are referred to as the tenant and the landlady for brevity. 4. Apart from the general issues that arise for consideration in these revisions, an issue of general importance i.e., whether the landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building both for residential and non-residential purposes has to be decided. 5. The landlady after exchange of notices, filed RCC No. 3 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Chittoor, seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(4)ALD418; 1999(4)ALT564; II(1999)DMC728
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order dismissing an application for condonation of the delay of 593 days in filing the application to set aside an ex parte decree of divorce. This is an unfortunate case, where there was estrangement between the husband and wife after they lived together for about 19 years after their marriage and they begot two children, who are now aged 24 and 25 years. The husband filed OP No.40/91 on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Gudiwada seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty on the part of the wife. The wife put in appearance by engaging an advocate, but as she failed to file a counter-affidavit despite grant of adjournments repeatedly, she was set ex parte on 20-11-1991 and an ex parte decree of divorce was passed on 4-3-1992. According to the wife she couid not file the counter in the main case as she fell down from the terrace and sustained serious spinal injury which necessitated her hospitalisation for a long time. According to her, she ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(3)ALD695; 2004(3)ALT781
B. Sudershan Reddy, J 1. These writ petitions are interconnected and require to be disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioner, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, inter alia, is a manufacturer of drug known as 'Norfloxacin', which is useful for treatment of urinary infections. The petitioner claims to be the largest manufacturer of 'Norfloxacin' as bulk drug in the country and also exports substantial quantities of the bulk drug,3. The petitioner in these writ petitions challenges the decisions of the Government of India dated 13.12.1996 and 27.12.1995. The Government of India vide its impugned decision dated 13.12.1996, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph-3 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (for short 'DPCO, 1995'), fixed the price of the bulk drug 'Norfloxacin' at Rs. 2162/- per kilogram. Likewise, in exercise of power under sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph-9 of the DPCO, 1995 the Central Government fixed the prices of 'Norfloxacin' tablets as the se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: (A. Shankar Narayana, J.) 1. Since point of law is common in all these revisions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Aggrieved of the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge of Mangalagiri, Peddapuram, Gajuwaka and Chittoor, respectively, these Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the respective judgment-debtor(s) in C.F.R. No.2546 of 2014 in E.P. No.50 of 2014, C.F.R. No.2548 of 2014 in E.P. No.42 of 2014, E.P. No.31 of 2013, E.P. No.115 of 2013 and E.P. No.61 of 2012, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC'), mainly, on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction in view of definition of Courtas envisaged under Section 2(1)(e) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act'). C.R.P. No.1340 of 2015: 3. (a) The revision petitioner herein is petitioner -judgment-debtor No.3 in C.F.R. No.2546 of 2014 in E.P. No.50 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, and respondent No.3 in A.O.P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966AP137; 1966CriLJ512
ORDERAnantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner gave a complaint to the Police. After investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur tried the accused. Ultimately, he convicted the accused and sentenced him. At the trial, the petitioner complainant deposed as P.W. 1. The accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Guntur and were completely acquitted by him. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition in this court praying for revision of the lower appellate Court's judgment of acquittal. Along with the revision petition, he filed a certified copy of the judgment of the lower appellate court but he did not file a certified copy of the judgment of the trial court. When the office required him to file a certified copy duly stamped, he came forward with a contention that he was not bound to furnish a certified copy. Therefore, the office put up the matter before me for hearing.2. The petitioner produced a copy of the trial court's...
Tag this Judgment!