Andhra Pradesh Court December 1981 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1981
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas654(AP)
Chennakesav Reddy, J.1. The question that arised for consideration in this criminal revision case is, whether the non-filing of a return of deposits by the companies under rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, is a continuing offence punishable under rule 11 of the said Rules. 2. The Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, filed a complaint before the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, alleging that the first accused company and accused Nos. 2 to 4, who are the directors of the first accused company, have failed to file with him before June 30, 1979. a return of deposits for the year 1978 under rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called 'the Deposit Rules'), and, therefore, they rendered themselves liable for punishment under rule 11 of the said Rules. 3. The accused contended that the complaint filed against them was barred by limitation under section 468, Cr. PC. 4. The learned Special Judge held ...
N. Kullayyappa and anr. Vs. N. Dastagiri Saheb
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP154
ORDER1. The respondent filed a suit against the petitioners for realisation of Rs. 16,443-50 with costs and future interest. Both the parties compromised the matter and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise on 26th Dec. 1974. According to the decree the petitioners have to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 16,000/- towards the suit amount and costs by 28th March 1975 and in default of payment by that date the petitioners have to pay the entire suit amount of Rs. 16,443-50 with future interest at 6% P.A. on Rs. 21,110 from the date of the suit till realisation, and suit costs of Rs. 1251-50. 2. Admittedly, the petitioners did not pay Rs. 16,000/- and costs by 28th Mar. 1975. Therefore, the respondent levied execution for recovering the entire suit amount of Rs. 16,443-50 with costs and future interest. The properties of the petitioners were brought to sale. The petitioners went on making some payments and getting the sale adjourned by filing petitions. Ultimately, the sale was...
Nathooram Kapoor Vs. E. Harbansilal Tuli (Deceased by Lrs.) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP278
ORDER1. These two petitions are filed to bring on record the legal representatives of the respondent. The respondent died on 29-12-1980. The learned counsel for the respondent sent a letter dated 8-6-1981 to the learned counsel for the petitioner informing the date of death of the respondent. It is stated by the petitioner that the said letter was received on 9-6-1981 and as he was away from Hyderabad from 1-6-1981 on pilgrimage where he had an heart attack and was brought to New Delhi for treatment and returned to Hyderabad on 6-9-1981 and on the next day immediately, this petition was filed in 7-9-1981. Stating the above facts, the petitions are filed to bring on record the legal representatives in the two C. R. Ps. These petitions are resisted by the respondent on the ground that there is a delay of 280 days in filing the applications, as calculated for the purpose of limitation under Rule 19 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules and even if the delay is ca...
Tej Bahadur Dube Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1981
Reported in: [1985]152ITR476(AP)
Mdhava Reddy, J. 1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate writ, direction or order (i) declaring the seizure of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 on November 30, 1981 by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh Circle II, Hyderabad, from the State Bank of India, Chandulal Baradari Branch, Hyderabad, under s. 132(1) of the Income-tax Act as illegal and with out jurisdiction,(ii) direct bearer Bonds, 1991 and to deliver the same to the petitioner, and (iii) for further declaring that, in any event, the State Bank of India, Chandulal Baradari Branch, Hyderabad, is bound to invest the said sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in the purchase of Special Bearer Bonds and is accountable to the petitioner accordingly. 2. We may notice, in brief, the facts averred by the petitioner which are necessary for the disposal of this petition. The petitioner is partner of a partnership firm carrying on business under thank and style of 'Pandit Debi Prayag Dutt' with its head o...
Budda Veeraiah and ors. Vs. K. Lakshminarasimha Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP380
Ramachandra Rao, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the judgment of our learned brother Raguvir J.2. The plaintiffs-appellants filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, Ex. A-1 dated 14-12-1968 alleged to have been executed by the 1st defendant Muthineni Pedda Ramaiah under which the 1st defendant is alleged to have agreed to sell half share in Ac. 30-27 guntas covered by S. Nos. 209, 214 and 215 situate in Jalalpuram, Suryapet Taluk Nalgonda district to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 9.200/-. The father of the 1st defendant had taken the father of the plaintiffs as illatom son-in-law about 50 years prior to the institution of the suit, and plaintiff's father was given a half share in the suit properties mentioned above, keeping himself the other half share. On the death of their father the plaintiffs inherited his half share while the defendant No. 1 inherited from his father the remaining half share...
Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, Company ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-1981
Reported in: [1982]51STC265(AP)
Madhava Reddy, J. 1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India by a manufacturer of steel products and registered as a dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, calling in question a notice G.I. No. 4974/72-73 dated 29th August, 1979, issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Company Circle, Visakhapatnam. The circumstances in which the impugned notice was issued may be briefly stated to appreciate the contentions stated in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner-dealer returned a net turnover of Rs. 1,49,37,196.29 for the year 1972-73 and claimed certain exemptions. Some of the exemptions claimed were allowed and an assessment order was made on 10th March, 1975, and was served on the assessee on 12th March, 1975. The assessee neither preferred any appeal nor got the assessment order revised, with the result that the order became final. However, on 12th January, 1976, the Commercial Tax Officer (OFA), Visakhapatnam, issued a ...
K. Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP137
ORDERThe Petitioner herein filed a declaration under the Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 along with his four major sons before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kavali. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was in excess of the ceiling area by the petitioner surrendered Ac. 42-80 cents of dry land of the Government and the later had also taken possession of the land on 8-8-76. 2. After the A. P. Land Reforms Amendment Act 10 of 1977 came into force, the petitioner filed a petition before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kavali, for fresh determination of his holding as per Sec. 4-A of the Amending Act 10 Tribunal held that the petitioner was in excess by only Ac. 5-60 cents and he was entitled for reconveyance of Ac. 37-20 cents of land our of Ac. 42-80 cents held to be in excess on an earlier occasion Thereafter the petitioner sent petitions to the Revenue Divisional Officer Kavali and to the Tahsildar, Kovur to implement that order. Subsequently he came to know that the ...
Meda Seshaiah Setty Vs. Director of Medical and Health Services and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP149
1. This writ appeal is against an order of dismissal made by Madhusudan Rao J. The Writ petitioner is a contractor supplying food articles to the Government Hospitals. For over three decades he had been supplying food articles to the Government Hospitals at Proddatur. Badvel and Pulivendla of Cuddapah District. In response to an invitation by the District Medical and Health Officer, Cuddapah to tender for supply of food articles during 1981-1982 the petitioner, among others , has offered his goods and conditions of supply. One of the tender conditions with which we are mainly concerned in this writ petition says, that a tenderer who by the date of submission of his tender which was fixed as 30-12-1980 has not cleared the arrears of sales tax payable by him becomes ineligible to offer tenders. This condition of ineligibility can be got over by a tenderer only by paying all sales tax arrears due by 30-12-1980 otherwise, such a tenderer would not be considered for awarding of the contract...
S.N. Nagarajulu, Etc., Etc. and ors. Vs. Railway Board and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1981
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ53AP
Ramanujulu Naidu, J. 1. In this batch of writ petitions filed by members of the Loco Running Staff of the South Central Railway, orders passed by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Guntakal, reverting them from higher posts to lower post are challenged. At the relevant time, the petitioners were working either as drivers 'A' grade, 'B' grade, 'C' grade, or as shunters, diesel assistants and fireman 'B' grade and 'C' grade. They were officiating in the said posts from periods ranging between four months and eighteen months. The impugned orders were passed on different dates between 2-2-1981 and 7-2-1981 under the following circumstances : The All India Loco Running Staff were making representations to the Railway Board as also to the authorities of the South Central Railway from time to time, that whereas other Railway employees had to work for a period of eight hours a day, no definite hours of work were fixed in respect of the loco running staff, that on several occations they w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›