Posts

WELCOME TO 2018

Wish you all a happy and prosperous New Year. 
God bless you all with great health, wealth and prosperity .
                                                                                                                  with regards
                                                                                                                            yours
                                                                                                                         advocatemmmohan

show cause as to why a sum of Rs.22,53,110/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand and One Hundred and Ten only) shall not be recovered for wrongly/irregularly availing/utilizing the Cenvat credit along with interest and penalty.= As for the availment of extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act, the Supreme Court in M/s. Continental Foundation Jt. Venture (2 supra) held that the word suppression used in Section 11-A of the Act has to be construed strictly and mere omission to give correct information does not constitute suppression of facts unless it was deliberate with a view to avoid payment of duty. A perusal of the show cause notice shows that there is no allegation of either wilful suppression or fraud or collusion against the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dt.23.09.2014 stated that the appellants therein are filing monthly ER1 returns by which keeping the department well informed about the transaction of the business with duty particulars along with copies of invoices of Cenvat details as well as its availment and that the Department cannot feign ignorance and allege suppression of facts to raise demand of duty by extending period of limitation. On a careful consideration of the reasons assigned by the Commissioner (Appeals), which were upheld by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that they are sound, convincing and cogent and therefore the Additional Commissioner has erroneously issued the show cause notice during the extended period of limitation which is not available on the facts of the case.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM                           
Central Excise Appeal No.135 of 2017

30-10-2017

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Tirupati  Appellant

Shree Radha Krishna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Respondent 

Counsel for the appellant: Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu,
                            Standing Counsel for the Customs,
                            Central Excise and Service Tax

Counsel for the respondent :

<GIST                                       :

>HEAD NOTE                             :

?CITATIONS:  1. 2016 (332) ELT 356 (Tril. Del.)
             2. 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC)

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY         
AND 
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM           

C.E.A. No.135 of 2017

DATED:30-10-2017 

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:       

JUDGMENT: (per the Honble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) 

        This central excise appeal arises out of final order
dt.31.10.…

notice under Section 126 of Act, 1964 = filing of any suit is barred unless and until notice thereunder is given to the Registrar in respect of any act touching the constitution, management or the business of the Society. Admittedly, in the present case, no such notice is given to the Bank nor to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI               

CCCA.No.320 of 2003 

21-09-2017

Aryan Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Nallakunta, Rep. by its Liquidator & another...Appellants

A.P.Womens Co-operative Finance Corporation Ltd.,Ameerpet, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director & others..Respondents   

For Appellants:Sri Kishore Rai, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 :   Sri J.S.Raju, Standing Counsel for A.P.Womens Co-operative Finance Corporation Ltd.

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? CITATIONS: 

1. 2000 (1) ALD 499
2. AIR 1981 AP 180
3. 2004 (1) ALD 878

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT       
AND 
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI     

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.320 of 2003   

JUDGMENT : (Per Honble Sri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait) 

        Vide the present appeal, the appellants have assailed the
order dated 11th February 2003, passed by the VII-Additional
Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.246 of
1998, whereby, the aforesaid sui…

the documents ante litem motam should be scrutinized with greater care because they may be prepared with the litigation in mind. ; Mere failure to reply to a notice does not amount to an admission.

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU       

CCCA No.169 of 1999 

09-11-2017

M/s. Plywood Syndicate,  a partnership firm and 2 others Appellants/Defendants

M/s. National Ply Wood Industries Limited, Hyderabad. Respondent/Plaintiff

Counsel for the appellants: V.S.R. Anjaneyulu

Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared.

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

  2010 (6) ALD 484
2 AIR 1973 AP 149 
3 AIR 1983 SC 684 
4 (1982) 2 SCC 202
5 MANU/TN/3504/2010 
6 AIR 1989 SC 1269 
7 2004 (1) ALD 269 (DB)
8 AIR 1966 SC 275 


HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU       

CCCA No.169 of 1999 

JUDGMENT: 

        CCCA No.169 of 1999 is filed against the judgment and
decree of the IV Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, dated
29.10.1998 passed in O.S.No.297 of 1989.
      2.        The suit was filed by Pioneer Wood Products Pvt.
Ltd., initially and later as per the orders dated 21.02.1997 in
I.A.No.878 of 1996 in O.S.No.297 of 1989, the plaintiffs name
was amended to National Plywood Industries Ltd…

when this Court laid the proposition of law in 1996 An.W.R. 282 and 1969 An.W.R. 222 to the effect that Assignment would constitute a part of the cause of action and the Court within whose jurisdiction the assignment took place would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the appellate Court should have held that the trial Court has got territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. = Section 70 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not a specific provision which can over-ride the provisions contained in Section 20 CPC. Section 70 of N.I. Act does not lay down the place where the suit has to be filed. More over, it does not deal with the case of assignment which has been held to constitute a part of the cause of action. It will thus be clear that where the right of the plaintiff depends upon the assignment of a promissory note in his favour, the assignment would constitute part of the cause of action and the Court within whose jurisdiction the assignment took place, would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the promissory note. Accordingly, we hold that the Court at Tenali has jurisdiction to try the suit in question.

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI               

C.R.P.No.3700 of 2006

05-09-2017

Malisetti Subba Rao. ..Petitioner

Kanneti Siva Parvathi Devi..Respondent 

For Petitioner :Sri N. Sreerama Murthy, Advocate.

For Respondent: None appeared. 

<Gist:

>Head Note:


?  CITATIONS:

1.AIR 2011 SC 421 
2.1966 An.W.R. 282 
3.1969 An.W.R. 222 
4. 2004(5) ALD 57

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT       
&
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI     

C.R.P.No. 3700 of 2006

O R D E R:- (Per Honble Sri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait)

     This Civil Revision Petition is filed to challenge the
decree and order dated 19.04.2006 made in C.M.A.No. 12 of
2005 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali by
confirming the order dated 12.04.2005 made in C.R.F.No.
12208 of 2004 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Tenali for returning the plaint for presentation in proper
Court.

2.      We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3.      The learned cou…

one of the bidder of Auction - filed claim petition under sec.47 read with sec.151- stating that the father of the Jdr is the full owner - Jdr is only had 1/3rd share and he is a tenant of it - execution court allowed the same - their lordships held that whether an application filed by decree holder under Section 151 CPC for removing the obstruction to delivery of possession of land claimed by decree-holder held to be treated as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 and the Court has followed the procedure laid down by Order 21 Rule 98 to 100, the Honble Supreme Court in S.Rajeswari v. S.N.Kulasekaran and others (supra) held that only appeal lies against the order passed under Order 21 Rule 97 treating the order passed in the application under Section 151 CPC as one under Order 21 rule 97 since factual aspects raised in the application under Section 151 of CPC attracted the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97. The Court below in that case also followed the procedure under Order 21 Rule 97 and held that the said order is appealable under Order 21 Rule 103 of CPC. But the facts in the present case on hand are otherwise. Having participated in the auction and having kept quite at that time, the 1st respondent/third party cannot question the auction sale of EP schedule property by way of an application under Section 47 r/w Section 151 CPC. Moreover, when Section 47 of CPC has no application and it is deemed that the Court passed orders under Section 151 CPC, which is not appealable, the Court below by of allowing the application, has terminated the entire EP, which is erroneous. The order setting aside the sale of EP schedule property will have the effect of disposal of EP itself - For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the Court below is set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY         

C.R.P. No.4865 of 2007

19-09-2017

Addepalli Bhaskar Rao ... Petitioner

Karmanchi Anil Kumar and another. ..Respondents 

Counsel for the Petitioner:  Sri N.Bhaskar Rao

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri V.Satyanarayana Prasad.

>HEAD NOTE:   

? Cases referred

AIR 1967 Kerala 145
2 (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 87 
3 (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 412 
4 2002 (6) ALD 834
5AIR 1964 SC 1300: (1964) 6 SCR 1001 
6(2003) 11 Supreme Court Cases 584 

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY         

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4865 OF 2007   

ORDER : 

        This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated
23.08.2007 in EA No.47 of 2005 in E.P.No.133 of 2003 in
O.S.No.35 of 2002, wherein the Court below has allowed
the application filed by the 1st respondent herein under
Section 47 and Section 151 of CPC by setting aside the sale
held on 29.11.2004.

2.      Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this Civil
Revision Petition are…