Andhra Pradesh Court December 1984 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.
State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Nagabhushanam and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-1984
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas740(AP)
A. Seetharam Reddy, J.1. The short, but a fairly substantial question that falls for determination in this second appeal is, whether a promissory note executed in favour of a guarantor, who endorsed it in favour of the bank, which lent the amount to the original executant of the promissory note, will enable the banker to successfully lay a claim against the guarantor, while giving up the original executant 2. The plaintiff, which is the bank, filed the suit against defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The first defendant, who is the first respondent herein, was having a hotel business and he was given credit facility to the extent of Rs. 2,000 against the personal guarantee of the second defendant, who is the second respondent herein. In respect of the above loan facility, a demand promissory note for Rs. 2,000 was executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and later it was endorsed by the second defendant in favour of the appellant bank. Also an agreement of cash credit exe...
Associated Cement Company Ltd. Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-1984
Reported in: [1985]58STC223(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The common question arising in these three writ petitions is, whether the petitioners, who are holding mining leases in respect of a major mineral (limestone), can be said to be the purchasers of limestone mined by them. The petitioners are manufacturers of cement, and they use the limestone mined by them for their own manufacturing purposes. The question arises under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 6-A of the Act provides, inter alia : 'Every dealer, who in the course of business - (i) .................................. (ii) purchases any goods (the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act) from a person other than a registered dealer, and (a) either consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise, or (b) disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State, or (c) ................................. shall pay tax on the turnover relat...
Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. the Regional Director, Esi Corporation
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ9AP
Seetharam Reddy, J.1. The only question that falls for determination in this appeal is whether the employees, who are admittedly more than 20 in number in the godown-cum-sale office of the petitioner's company are covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and if so whether the company is liable for contribution. 2. The facts in a nutshell are the appellant-company, Messrs Modi Rubber Limited, has got its registered office at Modinagar, whereas it has its main factory at Modipuram. After manufacturing the commodities out of rubber, it conveys the same to its premises at Hyderabad, styled as Depot-cum-sale office, and from that premises it supplies the commodities to the distributors after receiving moneys due. The State Government issued a notification under Section 1(5) of the ESI Act governing the said premises under sub-clause (iii) of item 3 of the notification. Thereupon the Corporation issued a notice holding that the godown-cum-sales office at Hyderabad is liable for in...
K. Shakunthala Vs. Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1986AP251
ORDER1. The petitioner's husband was an allottee of the house bearing No. 32/8 Residential Staff Quarters, Essamia Bazar, Hyderabad in the year 1961 by the City Improvement Board, now under the A. P. Housing Board. In this writ petition the petitioner challenged the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent, A. P. Housing Board directing the petitioner to close the ventilator as it affects the privacy of the inmates of neighbouring house No. 31/Spl. A, the 2nd respondent herein.2. It is averred in the petition the house was allotted to her husband in the year 1961 and he paid the entire instalments. But however he died without taking the necessary sale deed from the Board but she executed the agreement-cum--sale deed in favour of the Board on 17-2-83 and continued to be in possession of the property. On a complaint made to the Board by the 2nd respondent the following two impugned orders were passed. In the first order dt. 24-11-83 it is stated that the 2nd respondent made a represe...
Aditya Minerals Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-1984
Reported in: [1987]167ITR774(AP)
Anjaneyulu, J.1. Pursuant to the directions of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made these references in connection with the income-tax assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. An identical question of law is involved in these two references. 2. The assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It entered into an agreement with one V. C. Trivedi on March 8, 1972, for securing lease of 25.6 acres of land in Adilabad belonging to the said Trivedi for a period of fifteen years commencing from December 1, 1971. The lease was obtained for use by the assessee of the land for excavation purposes. According to the agreement, the assessee had to pay Rs. 35 by way of rent per month per acre. The rent per year accordingly works out to Rs. 10,752. The assessee deposited with the lessor, the rent for the entire period of fifteen years aggregating to Rs. 1,61,280. According to clause 2 of the agreement, the monthly rental...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Subba Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-1984
Reported in: [1986]159ITR120(AP)
Amareswari, J.1. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1977-78. 2. The assessee was the karta of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his minor son, Jagadiswara Reddy, and his wife, Seetharavamma and two minor unmarried daughters. This Hindu undivided family, through its karta, was having interest in two partnership firms. In both the partnership firms, the family was getting 12% as interest on the capital invested. On September 1, 1974, there was a partition and the capital in the two firms was divided between the two coparceners, i.e., between the father and the minor son. In the firm of M/s. A. Rami Reddy & Co, the family's partnership share was 6/64ths. Upon the division, each of the coparceners was allotted 3/64ths share. Similarly, in the case of another firm, M/s. Sri Lakshmiprasanna Sugar Factory, the family had 10% share and, on the division, each of the coparceners got 5% share. The two firms, in which the capital was standing in the name of the karta, ref...
Union Bank of India, Guntur Vs. Dhanakula Venkataramiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-1984
Reported in: AIR1985AP375
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The Plaintiff-appellant, having filed the suit, applied for attachment before judgment of paddy stored in the house of the first defendant. It was ordered, against which an appeal was preferred. The learned single Judge held that, by virtue of O.XXXVII. R.12 of the Civil P.C. 'agricultural produce' cannot be attached before judgment at all. Order XXXVII. R.12 CPC reads as follows:- 'Agricultural produce not attachable before judgment:- Nothing in this order shall be deemed to authorise the plaintiff to apply for the attachment of any agricultural produce in the possession of an agriculturist, or to empower the Court to order the attachment of production of such produce.' It is evident from a reading of the Rule that there is a total ban upon attachment before judgment of agricultural produce. In this case, the property attached is paddy, which is undoubtedly, an agricultural produce. Therefore, the ban operates. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, relied...
Vinnyallore Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1984
Reported in: [1986]162ITR881(AP)
Raghuvir, J.1. The above reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is made to this court, at the instance of M/s. Vinnyallora Industries, a company incorporated on October 21, 1970. The reference relate to the assessment years 1972 and 1973. The question is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loans from approved financial institutions are 'capital' employed for the purpose of computation of relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?' 2. Rule 19A referred in the question was held by this court in a writ petition as ultra vires the Income-tax Act, 1961, in Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. ITO : [1982]134ITR158(AP) . Similar decision was rendered by the Allahabad High Court and other High Courts in Century Enka Ltd. v. ITO : [1977]107ITR909(Cal) , Madras Industrial Linings Ltd. v. ITO : [1977]110ITR256(Mad) and Kota Box Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. ITO : [1980]123ITR638(All) . Parliament ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›