Andhra Pradesh Court August 1988 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.
Koyana Suryanarayana Reddy Vs. C. Chellayyamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1988
Reported in: AIR1989AP276
1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit is laid for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 6-9-1976 executed by the defendant.2. The plaint averments are that under the agreement the house property was agreed to be sold for Rs. 30,000/- and on the date of agreement Rs. 5,000/- was paid and the balance is payable on 31-12-1976. But, however, the time is extended on 2-8-1977 till 1-9-1977 on which date an additional sum of Rs. 9,000/- was paid and the defendant was postponing the execution of the sale deed as he has not paid the instalments due to the building society and obtained the sale deed and he also kept quiet without giving any reply to the suit notice dated 3-7-1980 and hence the suit. The defence is that the time is the essence of the contract. In the first instance it was agreed that the amount should be paid by 31-12-1976 but it was extended with an endorsement on the suit agreement on 2-8-1977 extending the time till 1-9-1977, but even then the plaintiff committ...
G.M.N.V. Prasada Rao Vs. the Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR761]; (1989)IILLJ90AP; (1989)IILLJ90SC
1. As Senior Store Supervisor at Vijayawada, petitioner, while on leave from December 1, 1982 to January 15, 1983, contested on December 10, 1982, as a candidate on behalf of the Communist Party of India at the General Elections as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. Obviously, he lost in the election. Thereafter, he cancelled 5 days leave to his credit and sought to join duty in January, 1983. A charge-memo was given to him on January 12, 1983 to explain why he should not be removed from service on the ground that he contested elections contrary to Regulation 23(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1983, (for short 'the Conduct Regulations'), and also Note 2(xv) to Regulation 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, (for short 'the CCCA Regulations'). The petitioner submitted his explanation. An enquiry was conducted giving reasonable opportunity...
Bathula Anasuya and anr. Vs. Bathula Rayudu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: AIR1989AP290; [1990]182ITR45(AP)
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was laid for partition of plaint A and B schedule properties and for separate possession of one-sixth share. The plaint case is that the first plaintiff is the wife of one Devallu who is the brother of defendants 3 and 4 and son of the first defendant. He died in the year 1972 intestate. During his life time he executed a nominal document on 22-12-1965 relinquishing the property in favour of the first defendant. Nonetheless, he lived as a member of the joint family and died as a member of the said family. The said document was never intended to be acted upon but was executed to protect the property against his wayward life, Afterthe death of Devallu, the defendants did not heed to the request of the first plaintiff to perform the marriage of the second plaintiff. Hence the suit for recovery of shares in the plaint A and B schedule properties.2. The defendants contested the claim stating that the relinquishment deed executed by Devallu (Ex....
N. Satyanarayana Murthy and ors. Vs. M. Venkata Bala Krishnamurthy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1988
Reported in: AIR1989AP167
1. The appeal of seven defendants against a preliminary decree of dissolution of Minerva Talkies, Vizianagaram, a partnership firm (for short 'the firm') of which they and the respondent-plaintiff are partners, rendition of accounts and payment of his l/5th share granted by trial court raises a question whether it is 'just and equitable' to dissolve the firm.2. The admitted facts are that on Feb. 1, 1947, a vacant site and a dilapidated building were purchased and a cinema theatre was constructed thereon and from June 2, 1949, the firm started exhibiting cinematographs. Initially the respondent had l/6th share, but on his purchasing the share of another partner he augmented to l/5th share thereof and invested Rs. 35,0007-. The appellants together have 4/5th share(the details of their respective shares are not necessary). The partnership deed was executed on Jan. 20, 1970, but due to change of partners another unregistered partnership deed Ex. B1 dated November 9 1975 was executed. From...
T. Srinivasulureddy Vs. C. Gorardhana Naidu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1988
Reported in: I(1990)ACC357
Amareswari, J. 1. These three appeals can be disposed) of together as a common question of law is involved. 2. The proceedings relate to compensation in respect of accidents involving the death or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles. In all these cases, the accidents took place prior to 1-10-1982. The claims preferred in respect thereof were dismissed on the ground that the negligence of the driver of the vehicle was not established. 3. On merits, we do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding regarding negligence is unsustainable. But the appellants contend that irrespective of the fact whether there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle they are entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,000/- under S.92A of the Motor Vehicles Act. They contend that a no fault liability had been imposed under this provision and they are entitled to compensation, of Rs. 15,000/-. 4. On the other hand,...
C.V. Ramana Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-1988
Reported in: [1990]181ITR248(AP)
M.N. Rao, J.1. This judgment will dispose of the two writ petitions as they are inter-connected. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12292 of 1987, is the husband of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12297 of 1987. Both the petitioners, residents of Rajam, Srikakulam District, are carrying on the business of money-lending. On April 7, 1971, their business and residential premises were searched by the officials of the Income-tax Department, when certain pronotes and account books were seized. Challenging that seizure, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1699 of 1971, on the file of this court questioning the constitutionality of section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act. That writ petition was dismissed by this court upholding the validity of section 132(5) of the Act and also the search conducted by the Income-tax Departmental officials and the consequent seizure of the account books and the promissory notes. Thereafter, two suits were filed by the petitioners, O.S. No. 30 of 1974,...
S. Srinivas Rao Vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989AP258
Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. A question of general importance, viz. whether 'appellate authority' named in Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Act No. XV of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act') is intended to act as a persona designata or as a Court and whether the High Court exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can transfer the appeals from the Court of the 'appellate authority' to any other Court, has arisen in these cases. 2. The facts that give rise to these questions may be stated. 3. In most of these cases the petitioners are either tenants or landlords. An eviction petition was filed in the Court of the Rent Controller under Section 10 of the Act, in one case and it was dismissed and the landlord filed an appeal in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, under Section 20 of the Act. The Chief Judge, however, transferred the batch of such appeals to the Court of the ...
K. Obul Reddy Vs. V. Nagaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-1988
Reported in: AIR1989AP203
ORDER1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order of the learned District Munsif, Kanigiri rejecting the appliation of the plaintiff for refund of the court-fee paid on the plaint.2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution against the defendant. Though intially court-fee paid was insufficient, later the required court-fee was paid. On the ground that no suit lies against the defendant in his individual capacity as the cause of action arose against him in his capacity as the Sarpanch of the Gram Pranchayat, the plaint was rejected without numbering the same. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. 1125/83 for refund of court-fee of Rs. 186/- paid on the plaint. The learned District Munisf dismissed that application.3. Sri S. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as the plaint was rejected even without numbering, the petitioner-plaintiff is entitled for refund of the court-fee paid on the plaint. I am...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpor ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-1988
Reported in: [1989]74STC336(AP)
Seetharam Reddy, J. 1. In this batch of revisions, preferred against the order made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the question that arises for determination is whether the sales effected during the assessment years 1969-70 to 1980-81 by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ('APSRTC' for short) in respect of scrapped vehicles, old tyres, tubes, tender forms and other unserviceable material, would be exigible to sales tax. The Appellate Tribunal held that it is not possible to hold that the corporation is carrying on any business or it is a dealer. Therefore, the sale of discarded and unserviceable material by it amounts to no business. 2. The contention of the Revenue is that the activity of the corporation is nothing but commercial in nature and, therefore, it must be held that it is carrying on business and consequently the scrap material which the corporation is selling away must be held to be incidental to its main activity and, therefore, the sale of such scra...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Tholasi Pandurangaiahchetty and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-1988
Reported in: [1989]75STC438(AP)
Seetharam Reddy, J.1. The question that has been posed for determination is whether the market cess collected by the dealers within the meaning of section 12 of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, can be said to form part of the taxable turnover for the purpose of levying sales tax. The Supreme Court, in similar circumstances, had an occasion to deal with, in a couple of decisions. The first one is reported in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar's case : [1981]1SCR707 , wherein it is held : 'From the observations made in the decisions referred to above, it follows that where a dealer is authorised by law to pass on any tax payable by him on the transaction of sale to the purchaser, such tax does not form part of the consideration for purposes of levy of tax on sales or purchases but where there is no statutory provision authorising the dealer to pass on the tax to the purchaser, such tax does form part of the consideration when he includes it in the price and realis...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »