IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, C.J., R Raghunandan Rao
A.P. Textile Mills Association – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.Raghunandan Rao, J.
All these matters are being disposed of by way of this common order as common issues are raised.
2. Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel, Sri A.Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel, Sri K. Gopal Chowdary, Sri Sricharan Tellaprolu, Sri P. Narasimha Rao, Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
3. The A.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Duty Act") was enacted for levying duty on the sale of electrical energy by "licensees". The term Licensee was originally defined to mean any person licensed under the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT , 1910 to supply energy or any person who was authorized under section 28 of the same Act to supply energy. This definition was amended to mean a person who has been granted a licence under Section 14 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003. Prior to the impugned amendments, Duty, at the rate of 6 paise per unit, was levied on the Licensees, under Section 3 of the Duty Act. Under section 7, the Government, by way of previous sanction, could permit the licensees to pass on the Duty, to the consumers. Section 3 A, empow
M.P. Cement Manufacturers Association vs. State of M.P.
Union of India and another vs. Mohit Minerals Private Limited
Vivek Narayan Sharma and others vs. Union of India
Shashikant Laxman Kale and another vs. Union of India and another
B. Prabhakar Rao and Ors., vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi and another
Mathuram Agrawal vs. State of M.P.
Govind Saran Ganga Saran v. CST
Southern Petrochemical Industries Company Ltd., vs. Electricity Inspector Etio And Ors.
Syed Ahmed Aga And Ors., vs. State Of Mysore And Ors.
Calcutta Corporation vs. Liberty Cinema
Devi Dass Gopalkrishnan and Others vs. The State of Punjab and Others
V. Nagappa vs. Iron Ore Mines Cess Commissioner and Anr.
M.K. Papaiah & Sons vs. Excise Commissioner and Anr.
Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association vs. Union of India and Anr.
A.N. Parasuraman and Ors., vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Agricultural Market Committee vs. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd.
D.K.V.Prasada Rao and Ors., vs. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh
Aswini Kumar Ghose and Anr., vs. Arabinda Bose and Anr.
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni @ Moopil Nayar and Ors., vs. States of Madras and Kerala and Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.