Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(1)ALD357; 2000(1)ALT138
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J1. All these appeals arc directed against a common order dated 15-2-1999 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.28157, 28158, 28292, 28390, 28491 and 28874 of 1998.2. Writ Appeal No.438 of 1999 is filed against the order passed in WP No.28157 of 1998. Writ Appeal No.439 of 1999 is filed against the order passed in WPNo.28491 of 1998. Writ Appeal No.440 of 1999 is filed against the order passed in WPNo.28158 of 1998. Writ Appeal No.44l of 1999 is filed against the order passed in WP No.28390 of 1998. Writ Appeal No.442 of 1999 is filed against the order passed in WP No.28874 of 1998. Writ Appeal No.443 of 1999 is filed against tlie order passed in WP No.28292 of 1998.3. The reliefs sought by the petitioners in each writ petition read as follows :The reliefs sought in WP No.28157 of 1998 are to declare the order dated 23-7-1979 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1994AP170; 1993(1)ALT608
1. Second Appeals Nos. 268 of 1985, 832 of 1987 and 378 of 1986 were heard by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of V. Sivaraman Nair and D. J. Jagannadha Raju, JJ. In these appeals, Banking Companies are the appellants, while in A.S. No. 1778 of 1984 Union Bank of India is the first, respondent.2. The main point that was debated before the Division Bench was regarding applicability of Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to the transactions entered into between a Banking Company and its debtors.3. On behalf of the Banking Companies, it was contended that after coming into force of Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short 'Regulation Act, 19490, Courts are prohibited/debarred from reopening the transactions entered into between the Banking Company and its debtor invoking the provisions of Usurious Loans Act, 1918 (for short 'Act 10 of 1918') irrespective of the fact whether the transaction was entered into prior to the coming into force of Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(1)ALT113
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Sri B. Subba Reddy, represented by his General Power of Attorney Holder filed the present writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent-appellate authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, New Delhi in an appeal No. 48 of 2005, dated 28-12-2005 and consequently allow the appeal of the petitioner as prayed for and to grant such other suitable relief.2. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri A. Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General, Smt. M. Lakshmi Kumari, Shri P. Vikram representing Sri K. Kodanda Ram, Sri K.Gopalakrishna Murthy, Sri V.V.S.N. Raju, the learned Counsel representing the respective respondents.3. At the outset it can be stated that the serious contest appears to be between the petitioner Sri B. Subba Reddy and the 6th respondent Sri V.N. Sunanda Reddy, Managing Director, M/s ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1991]72CompCas588(AP)
ORDERJeevan Reddy, J.1. The issue before the Full Bench is whether a writ petition liesagainst a Co-operative Society, and if it doe's, in what circumstances? Context is the enforcement of bye-laws governing service conditions of employees.2. In P. S. Naidu v. Chittoor District Co,-operative Central Bank, (1977) 2 APLJ (HC) 282 : (1978 Lab IC 528), a Division Bench of this Court held that an order of punishment made by a Society against its employee cannot be questioned by the latter by way of writ petition. The Bench pointed out 'as far as this Court is concerned, it has uniformly taken the view that a writ petition does not lie against a co-operative society especially when it relates to matters concerning the Society and its employees. In C. V. Narasimha Naidu v. Chittoor District Co-operative Bank Ltd., (1971)2 APLJ (SN) 16 ('W.P. No. 3788/1970 dated 7-6-1971'), one of us (Kuppuswami, J.) following the decision of a Division Bench of this (Madras?) Court in Lakshmaiah v. Sri Perumb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(5)ALD807; 2004(5)ALT755
1. The judicial somersault for a decade in the hands of the Division Benches and the Full Bench and the decisional upheavals inherent in the system continue to make the litigant under the perennial predicament and speculation. This is one such instance, we are called upon to clear the riddles.2. The matter is brought before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge (BPRJ) in regard to the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court reported in Motichand Jain v. Jaikumar M, : AIR2004AP136 (FB).3. The issue that arises for consideration is(a) Whether A.P. Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 30 of 1989 is retrospective or prospective in operation?(b) Whether there is any distinction between vested right and right to forum? 4. The Andhra Pradesh Civil Court Act, 1972 was brought into statute book with effect from 1.11.1972. The pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts both original and appellate and as also the forum are being amended from time to time. By A.P. Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1996]101STC426(AP)
S. Parvatha Rao, J.1. This tax revision case under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short), is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dated September 29, 1987, partly dismissing Tribunal Appeal No. 986 of 1987 preferred by the petitioner herein and partly confirming the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad-I Division, dated July 25, 1987, in Appeal No. 729/86-87 which in turn confirmed the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, General Bazar Circle, Secunderabad, in GI. No. 28054/82-83 dated December 5, 1986. The assessee is a proprietory concern of one Smt. Kusum Latha. She questions the best judgment assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer as confirmed by the Tribunal in respect of the purchases of photographic goods made by her from Bombay of the value of Rs. 8,38,631.18. 2. The facts in brief are as follows : The assessment relates to the assessment year 1982-83 unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1985]58STC223(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The common question arising in these three writ petitions is, whether the petitioners, who are holding mining leases in respect of a major mineral (limestone), can be said to be the purchasers of limestone mined by them. The petitioners are manufacturers of cement, and they use the limestone mined by them for their own manufacturing purposes. The question arises under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 6-A of the Act provides, inter alia : 'Every dealer, who in the course of business - (i) .................................. (ii) purchases any goods (the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act) from a person other than a registered dealer, and (a) either consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise, or (b) disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State, or (c) ................................. shall pay tax on the turnover relat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1988]63CompCas405(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. Two questions of law arise in this appeal, namely : Whether the expressions 'agriculture' and 'agriculturist' in their ordinary sense include 'horticulture' and 'horticulturist'? Whether section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which came into force with effect from June 21, 1984, applies to appeals pending on that date 2. Section 21A declares : 'Not withstanding anything contained in the usurious Loans Act, 1918, or any other law relating to indebtedness in force in any State, a transaction between a banking company and its debtor shall not be reopened by any court on the ground that the rate of interest charged by the banking company in respect of such transaction is excessive.' 3. Factual matrix : Defendants are the appellants. The respondent, State Bank of India, filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,35,927.86 with interest at the rate of 14% per annum on the said amount from the date of suit till realisation. The bank's claim, in short, is the fol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2010(1)ALT112
Ghulam Mohammed, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed praying this Court to declare provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 (Central Act 43 of 1995) particularly Section 14 of the Wakf Act, unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution.2. WP No. 11349 of 1996 is filed by the Association of AP Saj jada Nasheens, Mutawallies & Khidmat Guzaran of Wakfs, Dargah Hazrath Shaikh-ji-hali, Urdu Shareef, Hyderabad, represented by its President Soofi Shah Mohd. Sabir Ali and WP No. 11728 of 1996 is filed by All India Shia Organization, Yakutpura, Hyderabad, represented by its Joint Secretary Mirza Mehdi Ali Baig. Since the relief sought for in these writ petitions is the same, they are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.3. The facts in WP No. 11349 of 1996 are adverted to. It is stated that prior to the enactment of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Union Legislature had enacted the Wakf Act, 1954 and the provisions of the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993AP257
ORDERMs. S.V. Maruthi, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed by Smt. Satyavani, Head of the Women Wing of the Society for protection of animals for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another one Dr. A. Kishan Rao. Smt. Satyavani is the Honorary Animal Welfare Officer of the Animal Board Government of India. The 2nd petitioner is also an Honorary Animal Welfare Officer of the State Board.2. The relief claimed in this writ petition is an injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 5 from making any type of killing of animals for any purpose. After the filing of the writ petition, a petition was filed for amending the prayer in the writ petition by adding the additional prayer, namely, to set aside the industrial licence granted to the 5th respondent in November, 1992 by the Union of India, Industries Department and to declare the same as illegal. The petition was allowed on 2-2-93.3. It is necessary briefly to refer to the facts which led to the filing of the writ petition: M/s, Al-K...
Tag this Judgment!