Andhra Pradesh Court July 1982 Judgments
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dodda Somayajulu S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1982AP436
Chennakesay Reddy, J.1. This appeal by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Corporation arises out of an application filed by the respondent under section 110-A of the M. V. Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunalcum-District Judge, Guntur, claiming a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- against the appellant referred to as the corporation herein after.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the claim petition are these: on the night of 7th May, 1979 D. S. Sitarama Murthy, an Assistant Engineer, I & P., Nagarjunasagar Canals, was travelling by the bus A.P.Z. 9740 belonging to the Corporation from Chilakulripet to Hydrabad. Sitarama Murthy was seated in the rest seat of the bus to its extreme right. The bus reached Nagarjunasagar dam by about 1 A. M. on 8-5-1979. At the check-post lorries were parked on either side of the road. the driver of the bus above the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in between the two rows of stationed lorries. As a result, the rear part of the lorry hit the glass pa...
Tag this Judgment!Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad Vs. Bowlat Bibi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-1982
Reported in: AIR1983AP57
1. Common questions arise in these two appeals which arise out of O.S. No. 34 of 1974. A.S. No. 57 of 1976 is preferred by the sole defendant; while A.S. No. 45 of 1977 is preferred by the only plaintiff in the suit The suit was laid by the plaintiff-wakf Board, for recovery of possession of the suit property which is of an extent of three acres in nellore town. The plaintiff's case is that the suit property was endowed since time immemorial for the upkeep and performance of mouzan service in the Abbas Ali Khan Masjid. The grant was made to the mosque and was meant for ensuring service of Mouzan enjoys the income from the suit property. It is stated that the incumbents of the office of Mouzan have unauthorisedly alienated the suit property in favour of the defendant who has no right to be in possession thereof. It is submitted that the sale in favour of the defendant is illegal, incompetent and void. The suit was filed within the extended time provided by the public Wakfs (extension of...
Tag this Judgment!Andhra Pradesh Transport Co., Vijayawada Vs. Ghansyamdas Thosniwal
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-1982
Reported in: AIR1983AP12
ORDER1. The Revisionist in the tenant. The sole rather important point that is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is whether the tenant is entitled to a notice before the execution is order at a time when the execution petition is filed beyond 2 years. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that there is no authoritative pronouncement on this aspect. The argument is that admittedly the execution petition has been filed beyond 2 years and since there is no specific rule framed under the Act governing the situation, the provisions enacted in Order XXI, Rule 22, C. P. C. Are attracted which provides for a notice to be given to the judgment-debtor before any execution is ordered. Hence the order which has been made on the execution petition filed by the respondent is admittedly without any notice and the same will have to be set aside. Rule 23 of the Rent Control Rules framed under the A. P. Buildings (lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 reads as follows:- 'Rul...
Tag this Judgment!South India Corporation Agencies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Custo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1982
Reported in: 1983LC477D(AP); 1988(33)ELT351(AP)
K. Madhava Reddy, Acting C.J.1. M/s. South India Corporation Agencies Ltd., represented by its General Manager calls in question the order No. 1/82/MCD/14/14M.70/81, dated 15-4-1982 made by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam, imposing a penalty of Rs. 80,170/- under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, for the shortlanding of the high speed diesel oil transhipped by the tanker m.t. 'Go Go Rover'. That tanker arrived at Visakhapatnam on 5-3-1981. It transhipped part of the cargo at Calcutta through another vessel M.T. 'Megh Doot'. The tanker was carrying a cargo of 25002.593 M.T. of high speed diesel oil. A quantity of 3579.436 M.T. of diesel oil was discharged at Calcutta and only 20970.585 M.T. of diesel oil was discharged at Visakhapatnam Port, this accounting for 24550.021 M.T. as against the total quantity of 25002.593 M.T. carried by it. There was thus a shortlanding of 452.572 M.T. of High Speed diesel oil. After giving notice and calling upon the petitioner to su...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Krishna Bottlers Private Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-1982
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC362; 1983(12)ELT674(AP)
K. Madhava Reddy, A.C.J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed by a manufacturer of aerated water and other beverages which are subject to duty under the Central Excise Tariff. The goods manufactured by the Petitioner-Company are to be cleared on payment of duty under a document in the prescribed form known as 'G.P.I. Form'. He has been paying duty ever since it was imposed on aerated waters and other beverages i.e., since 1970. Among the various entries to be made in the G.P.I. Form, it is the case of the petitioner, that one such entry requires the assessee to note down the time of removal of the goods from the Factory. It is further case of the petitioner that the Company was advised that the time of removal to be noted by them in the gate-pass was the time at which the goods were removed out of the constructed factory premises and loaded on the trucks and that 'it was not obligatory to remove the goods out of the factory premises at the time noted in accordance with the advice mentioned i...
Tag this Judgment!Bollapalli Venkat Rao Vs. Chaturvedula Subbaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1983AP166
Kodandaramayya, J. 1. This civil Revision petition is referred for decision of a Division Bench by our learned brother Rama Rao, J. The question referred is whether a second Appeal lies to this Court against the appellate order passed on an application under O. 21 R. 58 C.P.C 2. The petitioner herein filed an application under O. 21 r. 58 C.P.C before the subordinate judge Narasaraopet, to raise the attachment in respect of petition schedule properties challenging the attachment effected at the instance of the 1st respondet-decree- holder who had obtained a decree against the 2nd respondent-Judgment-debtor. The contention of the petitioner is that the execution proceedings in respect of the petition schedule properties are illegal as the property belongs to him and not to the judgment-debtor. At present was are not concerned with the merits of the case and is enough if we notice that the object of the petitioner was overruled by the executing Court. A civil Miscellaneous appeal was fil...
Tag this Judgment!Karachi Stores Vs. Yargani Venkateswara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1982AP470
ORDER1. The respondent herein is the owner of the building bearing door No. 11-1-64 situate at Vijayawada. The building consists of six portions let out by the respondent. The petitioner is the tenant of the portion abutting Ghulam Mohiuddin Street and Babu Rajendrapershad Road, since 20 years or more, the monthly rental paid by him being Rs. 150/- The respondent sought eviction of the petitioner from the Rent Controller, Vijayawada, from the demised portion as be intended to run departmental stores in the demised portion and also in the adjoining vacant portion of the building. The petition for eviction having been dismissed, the respondent preferred RCA. 66 of 1978 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada. The learned subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and directed eviction of the petitioner from the demised portion holding that the same was bona fide required by the respondent for the purpose pleaded by him. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred the above r...
Tag this Judgment!G. Balaiah Setty Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1982
Reported in: [1982]51STC335(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Rule 14-A(8) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1957, empowers the assessing authority to reopen the assessment within a period of six years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, if such escapement has occurred on account of the failure of the dealer to disclose the turnover or any other particulars correctly, and within a period of four years if such escapement has occurred due to any other causes. It would be appropriate to set out sub-rule (8) : '(8) If, for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax or has been underassessed in any year, the assessing authority may after issuing a notice to the dealer and after making such inquiry as he considers necessary determine to the best of his judgment the correct turnover, and assess the tax payable on such turnover - (a) within a period of six years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, if any such event has occur...
Tag this Judgment!Union Bank of India, Visakapatnam Vs. Andhra Technocrat Industries and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1982AP408
Chennakesav Reddi, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under O. 43, R. 1 (q), C. P. C. raises a question of its maintainability. The question is whether an order dismissing an application under O 38, R. 5, C. P. C. for an order of attachment before judgment is appealable.2. The facts are short and simple. The Union Bank of India, Visakhapatnam, is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit is one for recovery of money. The Plaintiff filed an application under O. 38, R. 5, C. P. C. for attachment of a sum of Rupees three lakhs lying with the Director General, Naval Project, Visakhapatnam, payable to the I defendant, before judgment. It was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that unless attachment before judgment was ordered, the plaintiff-Balk would be put to serious loss and injury. Notice was ordered, to the defendants on the said application. No conditional attachment order was passed under sub-rule (3) of O.38, R.5, C. P. C. The defendants appeared and resisted the application c...
Tag this Judgment!Atmakuri Venkatratnam Vs. District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2024
Gangadhara Rao, J.1. This petition, for a writ of habeas corpus, is filed to release the petitioner Sri Atmakuri Venkataratnam. The District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed an order of detention on the petitioner under section 3(1)(b)(i) of the said Act on 18th May, 1982, Grounds of detention were served upon him. He is now lodged in Central Jail, Visakapatnam. 2. The grounds of detention read as follows :- 'You are a resident of Martur village, Addanki Taluk of Prakasam District. You are a fair price shop dealer in Martur village dealing with the distribution of essential commodities under public distribution system Your fair price shop is located at Door No. 3-235 of Martur village. On credible information that you are indulging in clandestine business in levy sugar, the District Suppl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »