Andhra High Court

Andhra High Court

  1. >Head Note:

    ?Cases referred:

    HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI Writ Petition No.13032 of 2017 ORDER: (V. Ramasubramanian, J) Aggrieved by an order of assessment passed under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the dealer has come up with the above writ petition.

    2. Heard Mr. P. Girish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Suribabu, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

    3. Obviously the order of assessment is an ex parte order as can be seen from the following:

    ..Accordingly, a show cause notice, called for objections, if any, was issued to the dealers, on 30.01.2017, and the same was got served on the dealers on 30.01.2017. In response the notice the dealer filed a letter dt. 03.02.2017 received in this office on 07.02.2017 requesting time for 15 days to file written objections and also to represent the case in person. The dealers did not file any objections nor requested further time, though the time allowed was expired. IT is construed that the dealers have no objections to file, and accepted the proposed tax. Hence, the proposed tax in the show cause notice is confirmed as shown below

  2. >HEAD NOTE:

    ?Cases referred

    1.(2010) Vol. 51 APSTJ 117 = AIR 2001 AP 270 HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI W.P.No.38142 of 2016 ORDER: (per V. Ramasubramanian, J.) The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited, which is a Corporation wholly owned by the State of Andhra Pradesh, has come up with the present writ petition challenging the action of the Commercial Tax Officer, who is the second respondent herein, in attaching the current account of the petitioner in the State Bank of India, which is the 1st respondent herein.

    2. Heard Mr. P.V. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Suri Babu, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes (A.P.).

  3. >HEAD NOTE:

    ?Cases referred HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI W.A.Nos.760 & 761 of 2017 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per V. Ramasubramanian, J.) These writ appeals arise out of an order of the learned Single Judge, directing the respondents to consider the conversion, on rotation basis, of the seats from one University area to another University area once in three years, in such branches of Super Speciality courses in Medicine, which have a sanctioned intake of 8 seats.

    2. We have heard Mr. N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Telangana as well as the Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences and Mr. K. V. Simhadri, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents in one of the writ appeals.

  4. >Head Note:

    ? Cases referred:

    1) 2005 (2) SCC 104

    2) 1991 Suppl. (1) Supreme Court 574

    3) 1993 (4) SCC 441

    4) (1997) 3 SCC 261

    5) (2007) 2 SCC 1

    6) 1998 (1) SCC 739

    7) (2011) 2 SCC 772

    8) (2016) 1 SCC 397

    9) (2016) 1 SCC 397

    10) (2003) 2 All. E.R. 977 11 (2016) 5 SCC 1 HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMADEVI Writ Petition (PIL) No.70 of 2017 ORDER: (per V. Ramasubramanian, J.) The petitioner, who is a designated Senior Advocate of this Court, has come up with the present writ petition complaining about the inaction on the part of the different stakeholders in (1) not appointing a regular Chief Justice for the past about 22 months; (2) not filling up of the vacancies to the sanctioned strength; (3) not maintaining the ratio of 2:1 for elevation from the Bar and the service; (4) not appointing any Member of the Bar of the State of Telangana for the past 4 years and (5) consequently not fulfilling the obligations imposed under various Articles of the Constitution.

  5. >Head Note:

    ? Cases referred:

    1)1992 Supp (2) SCC 60

    2)(2008) 16 SCC 705

    3)(2010) 8 SCC 514

    4)(2017) 1 SCC 529 THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1584 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Honble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao) This appeal is filed by appellant/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.06.2010 in S.C.No.256 of 2009 passed by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Siddipet whereby the learned Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer SI for three months.

  6. >Head Note:

    ? Cases referred:

    1) 2015 (324) E.L.T. 430 (SC)

    2) 2015 (318) E.L.T. 585 (SC)

    3) 2015 (326) ELT 426

    4) (2005) 4 SCC 194

    5) Manu/SC/1066/2010 HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE Ms JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI C.E.A.Nos.285 and 320 of 2010 and 88 and 107 of 2011 Common Judgment: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.) Two different Assesses manufacturing and selling plastic moulded chairs have come up with these 4 appeals questioning (i) the denial of the benefit of the Exemption Notification No.8/2003, dated 01-3-2003 and (ii) the imposition of penalty.

    2. We have heard Mr. Gandra Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Sundari R. Pisupati, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

  7. >Head Note:

    ? Cases referred:

    1) AIR 1964 Supreme Court 529

    2) 1993 (3) ALT 446

    3) 2011 Crl. Law Journal 4152

    4) 2011 (6) MLJ 524 HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Civil Revision Petition Nos.6069 and 6071 of 2016 COMMON ORDER:

    These revisions arise out of the dismissal of two applications filed by the petitioner/defendant, seeking the reopening of his evidence and also for sending the suit promissory note Ex.A.1 for examination to a Handwriting Expert.

    2. Heard Mr. A. Bhaskara Chari, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Mr. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

    3. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.1263 of 2015 against the petitioner herein, for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note dated 08-12-2012. The petitioner herein filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that he borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from a person by name Raghava Arjuna Rao on 13-08-2010 and also created a mortgage in his favour; that at the time of borrowal, the said Ragha Arjuna Rao took his signatures in a blank promissory note and a blank cheque; that though the entire mortgage debt was discharged by him, the said Raghava Arjuna Rao filed a suit in O.S.No.63 of 2013; that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the respondent herein and that with the assistance of the said Raghava Arjuna Rao, the respondent fabricated the blank promissory note given by him and filed the present suit.

  8. >Head Note:

    ? Cases referred:

    1. (2002) 3 SCC 314

    2. (2006) 3 SCC 1

    3. [2009] 25 VST 653

    4. [2015] 51 GST 582 HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI Writ Petition No.44908 of 2016 Order: (per V. Ramasubramanian, J.) The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging an order of assessment passed by the 3rd respondent herein under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for various tax periods in the years 2012-13 and 2013-14.

    2. Heard Mr. S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, and Mr. B.Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondents 1 and 4.

  9. >HEAD NOTE:

    ? Cases referred

    1.AIR 2003 SC 355

    2.(2003) 6 SCC 697

    3.(2004) 8 SCC 139 HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI W.P.No.1879 of 2017 ORDER: (per V. Ramasubramanian, J.) A group of minority institutions offering professional and other courses have come up with the present writ petition challenging the norms and standards laid down by the All India Council for Technical Education, under Section 10(1)(i) of the AICTE Act, 1987.

    2. Heard Mr. Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K. Ramakanth Reddy, learned counsel takes notice for the 2nd respondent, Mr. T. Rajasekhara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education takes notice for State of Telangana and Mr. A. Abhishek Reddy takes notice for respondents 5 and 6.

  10. >HEAD NOTE:

    ? Cases referred

    1.(2014) 6 SCC 644

    2.(2006) 11 SCC 356 HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI W.P.No.37026 of 2016 ORDER: (per V. Ramasubramanian, J.) The petitioners, who applied for appointment to the post of Office Subordinates in the Courts in Chittoor District, have come up with the present writ petition challenging cancellation of the entire selection.

    2. Heard Mr. P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the High Court.

    3. On 02.09.2015, The Principal District Judge, Chittoor, the 3rd respondent herein, issued a notification inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment to 20 posts of Process Servers and 47 posts of Office Subordinates / Attenders by direct recruitment, in the unit of the District Judge, Chittoor. The petitioners applied.

Welcome To Satyagraha

Joshua 7:20 - "And Achan answered Joshua, and said, Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done:"

Show Your Support by liking our facebook page: