Andhra Pradesh Court February 1990 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.
A. Kodandachari Vs. Radhamma Alias Kanthamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR616(AP)
Neeladri Rao, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 329 OF 1984, on the file of the First-Additional District Munsif, Chittoor, is the revision petitioner. The suit was filed for declaration of title and some other consequential reliefs which are not relevant for disposal of this revision petition. The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 101 of 1989 under Order 6, rule 17, Civil procedure Code, 1908, praying for amendment of the plaint. The amendment which is sought is as under : 'Delete : 'is only benamidar and he is real owner and in fact he' and substitute : 'in a fiduciary capacity and title stood in her name for the benefit of the plaintiff and the plaintiff.' 2. The suit was presented in 1983. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), had come into force during the pendency of this suit. It was held by the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare : [1989]177ITR97(SC) , that the above Act was retroactive and thus it is equally applicable to ...
A. Ramakoteswara Rao Vs. the Vice-chancellore, Nagarjuna University, G ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-1990
Reported in: AIR1991AP71
ORDER1. The petitioner is a student studying B.Com. Degree Course in the second respondent-College. He has filed the application for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the petitioner with role No. 60762 in proceedings No. NU/ SS.2/ MEC/ 88-89 dated 7-7-1989 and quash the same by declaring the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and Art, 14 of the Constitution.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has completed his Intermediate course in April, 1982 and passed in second division. After completion of his Intermediate, he joined the Polytechic College at Ongole and passed in first class. Throughout his career of his Intermediate and Polytechnic courses, no complaints have been made against him by the concerned institution. The petitioner claims that he has done exceedingly well in sports and athletic meets which are relevant for the purposes of this case.3. The petitione...
Modh. Maneef Vs. Mahendra Prasad and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1878
Ramanujulu Naidu, J.(1) This writ petition is filed for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus, quashing the order dated 27-9-1989 passed by the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended), hereinafter called 'the COFEPOSA Act', directing detention of the detenu in the Central Prison, Hyderabad and setting the detenu at liberty. (2) On 17-7-1989, the detenu was apprehended by the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad at the Railway Station, Secunderabad and from his possession, the following foreign currency was seized : $5,430, Pounds 120 of U.S. Dollars; 13,040 Saudi Rials; 110 Omani Rials; and 230 UAE Dirhams. He was immediately interrogated and a statement was recorded from him. According to him (detenu) he was dealing in ready-made garments at Ameerpet, Hyderabad and was employed by one Rasheed to carry foreign currency to Bombay and he ...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Guntur District Milk Producers Co-operativ ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-1990
Reported in: [1990]79STC211(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. By G.O.Ms. No. 20 dated January 2, 1980, issued under section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh exempted 'the sale of pasteurised milk by the Guntur District Milk Producers Co-operative Unit Limited, Vadlamudi, from the levy of tax payable under the said Act with effect from 1st August, 1978'. For the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, the assessee herein, the Guntur District Milk Producers Co-operative Unit Limited, sold a certain quantity of skimmed milk powder. Treating the milk powder as different goods, tax was levied upon the turnover relating thereto. The said levy was questioned by the assessee in an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner unsuccessfully and, thereafter, before the Sales Tax Appellant Tribunal successfully. The Tribunal held that the skimmed milk powder is nothing but milk and, therefore, covered by the said exemption G.O. We are inclined to agree with the Tribunal. Since the ...
T. Raja Rao Vs. T. Neelamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2430
ORDER1. The 1st respondent who is the wife of the petitioner filed a petition M.C. No. 16/1982 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sompet for maintenance against the petitioner who is her husband. The husband contested the petition contending inter alia that she is living in adultery. The learned Magistrate after holding enquiry rejected the contention of the husband that the wife is living in adultery and accepted the case of the wife that the husband had neglected to maintain her and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- p.m. for the wife and Rs. 50/- for each of the children. Against that the husband preferred revision Cr.R.C. No. 50/87 before the Sessions Judge, Srikakulam who dismissed the revision by his order dt. 27-6-1989. Crl.M.P. No. 1581/89 is filed to quash the said proceedings. 2. The husband has filed M.C. No. 430/86 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Sompet for cancellation of maintenance under Section 127(2), Cr.P.C. alleging that the ...
S. Narayana Reddy and Others Vs. S. Sai Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-1990
Reported in: AIR1990AP263
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Mahbubnagar, in I.A.No. 82 of 1988 in O.S. No. 42 ofl972 filed by the plaintiff for passing a final decree in terms of preliminary decree.2. The facts in brief that led to the filing of an application by the plaintiff for passing a preliminary decree in the partition suit are as follows:The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and . the Court passed a preliminary decree on 26-12-1973 declaring that he is entitled to 1/3rd share in the plaint A, C and D schedule properties. The first defendant filed an appeal against that preliminary decree. The High Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court on 15-10-1984 holding that the plaintiff, the 4th defendant and the first defendant are entitled to 1 / 3rd share each and also directed the trial Court while passing a final decree to make appropriate provision for maintenance and marriage expenses of defendants 5 to 9 and maintenance of the third defenda...
Koneru Aruna Kumari Vs. Shaik Ali
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-1990
Reported in: AIR1991AP191
ORDER1. These two revision petitions are preferred against the orders passed by the Rent Controller, Vijaywada, in E.A.No.14 of 1985 and E.A.21 of 1985 in E.P.No.4 of 1985. E.A.No.14 of 1985 was filed by a third party who claims to be the tenant, under S.151, C.P.C. read with R.23(7) of Act 15 of 1960 for restoration of possession of the petition schedule premises to him. E.A. No.21 of 1985 was filed under O.39, R.2(a), C.P.C. read with S.151, C.P.C. to order detention of the landlady in civil prison. Both the petitions were allowed by the lower Court. Aggrieved by the said orders, the landlady preferred these two revision petitions.2. The Court below came to the conclusionthat the tenancy is between the third party who filed the petition and the 1st respondent and the alleged tenancy that has been stated in the main Rent Control petition that the tenancy is between the landlady and K. Koteswara Rao who is the 2nd respondent is not correct and ultimately ordered redelivery of possessio...
Prabhudayal Ramanand Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-1990
Reported in: [1990]77STC122(AP)
Upendralal Waghray, J.1. This batch of writ petitions is filed by several roller flour mills in the State seeking declaration that the collection of sales tax on sale or purchase of wheat or its products like maida, atta, ravva is unconstitutional and illegal. 2. It is not disputed that a number of roller flour mills which convert wheat into its various products like ravva and maida are located in our State and also this State has a large number of bakeries manufacturing biscuits, bread, etc., which use wheat products as raw material. It is asserted that the number of bakeries in this State is the highest in our country. Our State does not produce wheat in significant quantities and, therefore, it has to be brought from outside the State for the roller flour mills. Wheat is one of the declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and, therefore, the maximum rate at which a State can levy sales tax on its sale is four per cent. Till about 1987, wheat, which is an essentia...
Tropical Agro System (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2739
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against the petitioners who are accused in C.C. No. 19 of 1989 on the file of the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. The case was filed against them under the Insecticides Act 46 of 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that they have misbranded some pesticides. A-1 and A-2 are the dealer and distributor respectively. A-3 and A-4 are Directors of the Manufacturing Company. A-5 is the Chemist of the Manufacturing Company. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the petition as regards A-1 and A-2. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that A-3 to A-5 cannot be held responsible as there is no specific allegation against them. That contention is based on Section 33 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act provides that whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›