Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: April, 2022

Nominal Index N. Gopinath v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 46 Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 47 Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatram Private Trust v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 48 M/s. Sree Constructions, v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 49 Dommaraju Vinay v. The State of A.P., 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 50 Pedapudi Alfred Johnson Jeyakaran Jesudasan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 51 Gadda Ramesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 52 Byalla Devadas v.Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 53Raju Jat Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 54 CY. Pratap Reddy v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 55 N. Appa Rao v. The State Of AP, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 56 Dinesh @ Dinesh v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 57 Karampudi Vijay Pal v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 58 Nandurkar Satish Dowlathrao V. State Rep By The Public Prosecutor, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 59 Arun Kumar Mahipal Singh v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 60 Edhellacheruvu Balarami Reddy v. Edhellacheruvu Munaswamy Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 61 Gampala Naga Raju v. Shaik Nazeerunnisa, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 62 Sunkara Ramu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 63 Maroju Vaikunta Balabji @ Balaji v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 64 Uggina Nagamani Versus Kona Persisurani, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 65 Chelluboyina. Nagaraju v. Molleti Ramudu alias Vijayalakshmi, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 66 M/s. Mobile and Movie World v. Sri Ghulam Abbas Khurasani, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 67 Ajay Kumar Parasaramka v. Pradeep Kumar Rath, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 68 G.P. Hemakoti Reddy, Ananthapur Dist. v. P.P., Hyd, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 69 Mara Manohar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 70 Sanikommmu Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 71 G.Ramesh Babu, Chittoor Dt., v. The State Of Ap., Rep Pp And 3 Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 72 M/s. Indian Minerals and Granite Company v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 73Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant v. The Union of India , and connected matters, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 74Judgments/Orders of the Month 1. Section 420IPC- Complaint Can Be Quashed If Company Is Not Made A Co-Accused In A Crime: Andhra Pradesh High Court Case Title: N. Gopinath Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 46 The Andhra Pradesh High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC to quash a FIR which had not made a company as co-accused even though the transaction was made with the company. Justice D. Ramesh held that since the company was not made the co-accused, on this ground alone, the complaint is required to be quashed. 2. Show-Cause Notice And The Final Order By Public Authority Having Different Reasons Is Grave Illegality: Andhra Pradesh High Court Case Title: Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 47 Justice Satyanarayana Murthy of Andhra Pradesh High Court, passed a detailed order stating that show-cause notice and the final order cannot have different reasons or grounds as it denies the noticee the opportunity to rebut the allegations. In UMC Technologies Private Limited v. Food Corporation of India (2021), the Apex Court held that the show cause notice must spell out clearly or its contents be such that it can be clearly inferred therefrom. 3. Writ Is Not A Proper Remedy For Seriously Disputed Question Of Facts That Are Matters Of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Case Title: Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatram Private Trust Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 48 The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition which brought up for consideration seriously disputed questions of facts that are matters of evidence, and held that the same falls outside the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu observed that the case had fundamental question to be decided about the land i.e. whether the land was donated or occupied. Was the land "forcibly taken over" was another issue. The petitioner's inaction for years was also clearly visible. There was no "gift deed' but per se some contemporaneous evidence was produced. Hence, there were seriously disputed questions of facts. 4. Issue Of Notice Of Hearing Is A Statutory Requirement Under Section 75(4) Of CGST Act Before Imposition Of Tax Or Penalty: Andhra Pradesh High Court Case title: M/s. Sree Constructions, Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 49 The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition by an assesse as there...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: April, 2022

Jagriti Sanghi

Tags