Posts

Showing posts from March, 2014

Section 31 (1) (b) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 - selling non-duty paid beer - stock seized and license was suspended pending enquiry - Writ filed as a peremptory finding was recorded before enquiry - their lordships held that However, in the immediate next sentence he has stated as under:"Thus it calls for initiation of departmental action under Section 31 (1) (b) A.P.Excise Act, 1968, pending further enquiry in the public interest." - dismissed the writ = N.Malla Reddy The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent,Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.S.Niranjan Reddy for Mr.P.Sri Harsha Reddy = 2013 (March. Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9743

Section 31 (1) (b) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 - selling non-duty paid beer - stock seized and license was suspended pending enquiry - Writ filed as a peremptory finding was recorded before enquiry - their lordships held that However, in the immediate next sentence he has stated as under:"Thus it calls for initiation of departmental action under Section 31 (1)(b) A.P.Excise Act, 1968, pending further enquiry in the public interest." - dismissed the writ =

No doubt, if the sentence preceding the above quoted part of the order passed by
respondent No.1 is read in isolation, it would definitely give an impression
that the respondent has arrived at a final conclusion on the petitioner's
violation of license conditions.  However, if the above quoted sentence is read
along with the previous part of his order, such an impression will get
obliterated.  One needs to be conscious of the fact that the respondent is not a
judicially trained officer.
The petitioner is a retail dealer of Indi…

Sec. 52 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 2 (3) of A.P. Excise (Powers and Duties) Rules, 1972 - Head constable seized the stock of licensed complaint shop - Only above the rank of circle inspector authorised under Act to seized and enter the shop - Writ petition allowed and whole proceedings are quashed = Kundarapu Krishna, S/o. Yadagiri, Aged about 25 years, Business, R/o.Chintalpally village, Sangem Mandal,Warangal District, A-4 licensee of M/s. Sri Sai Wines at H. No.3-143/6, Sangem (V) & (M), Warangal District 1. The State of A.P., Rep. by its S.H.O. PS. Sangem, Warangal District through P.P. of High Court. 2. Y. Rajendra Prasad, Head Constable (HC No.1402),PS Sangem, Warangal district = 2011 (Dec. Part ) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=8818

Sec. 52 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 2 (3) of A.P. Excise (Powers and Duties) Rules, 1972 - Head constable seized the stock of  licensed complaint shop - Only above the rank of circle inspector authorised under Act to seized and enter the shop - Writ petition allowed and whole proceedings are quashed = 
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : On 20-08-2009 as per
the instructions of Excise Circle Inspector, Mamnur the complainant along with
P.C. Nos.1558 and 2040 conducted patrolling at Thimmapur village, having got
reliable information that A-1 to A-4 were selling liquor purchased from A-5 at
their kirana shops without any license and valid permission, surprised the
house/kirana shop of A-5 =

Section 52 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 reads as follows :
"Power to enter and inspect places of manufacture and  sale :-  The
Commissioner or a Collector or any Prohibition and Excise Officer not below such
rank as may be prescribed, or any Police Officer duly empowered in that…

sec. 47 -A of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 - licence holder - seized stock is a duty paid one - The only ground on which the beer was seized is that the stock was not handed over at the petitioner's shop premises but the same was being transported to a different place at Huzurnagar side. - Where the Commissioner is satisfied that the offence is not grave in nature, he can either levy compounding fee or collect the value of the seized stock. - collecting both is illegal - Writ allowed - I am of the opinion that the condition directing payment of the value of the seized duty paid liquor, is wholly irrational and unreasonable. Accordingly, the impugned order, to the extent of stipulating the condition of payment of the value of the seized stock, is set-aside. The respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs.78,953/- representing the value of the seized stock, to the petitioner. = M/s. Siddivinayaka Wines,Nalgonda, represented by its licencee N. Veera Reddy The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise,Nampally, Hyderabad and others = 2011 (Nov. Part ) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=8511

sec. 47 -A of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 - licence holder - seized stock is a duty paid one -  The only ground on which the beer was seized is that the stock was not handed over at the petitioner's shop premises but the same was being transported to a different place at Huzurnagar side.  - Where the Commissioner is satisfied that the offence is not grave in nature, he can either levy compounding fee or collect the value of the seized stock.  - collecting both is illegal - Writ allowed - I am of the opinion that the condition directing payment of the value of the seized duty paid liquor, is wholly irrational and unreasonable.  Accordingly, the impugned order, to the extent of stipulating the condition of payment of the value of the seized stock, is set-aside.  The respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs.78,953/- representing the value of the seized stock, to the petitioner. =
The petitioner is a holder of A-4 licence for running retail liquor shop.
When certain quantity of beer…

Dakarapu Lakshmana Swamy..Appellant Maddula Narasimha Rao and others....Respondents = 2014 (March. Part ) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11040

In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the trial Court's
decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiffs for possession with past and
future profits and costs by dismissing the plaintiffs' suit claim. 
There is no
order as to costs, including in the appeal. Needless to say the remedy of the
plaintiffs is as legal representatives of the 2nd defendant for rescission of
the contract for sale and possession subject to result of suit for specific
performance stated pending filed by 1st defendant/appellant herein, unless any
defence taken therein of unenforceability of the agreement, for recovery of
possession to consider within its own merits.  
It is further made clear that for
filing such suit by plaintiffs, their mother, brothers and sisters, the lis
covered by the appeal suit throughout no way come in their way also from the
fact that 1st defendant by acknowledging contract for sale entered by 2nd
defendant cannot when plead any adverse possession against 2nd defendant, 
equall…