Andhra Pradesh Court February 1991 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.
M. Rajkumar and Others Vs. the Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad and Ot ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: AIR1992AP143; 1991(1)ALT653
ORDERSardar Ali Khan, J.1. Mr. M.Rajkumar, writ petitioner No. 1 is a licensee for the Arrack Unit Twin Cities Hyderabad District for the excise year 1990-91. Petitioners 2 and 3 claim to be owners of the premises of the shop situate at Osman Shahi in Survey No. 9/ 2, Ward No. 202 Block No.C of an extent of 382.66 Sq. Yards.2. The case of the 1st petitioner, in a nutshell, is as follows:-- He was the highest bidder and auction purchaser in respect of Arrack Unit Twin Cities Hyderabad District of 128 arrack shops for the excise year 1990-91. Having completed all the formalities, the excise authorities granted licences in respect of other shops, except in respect of Osman Shahi arrack shop on the ground of non-acceptability of the premises. Then the 1st petitioner filed W.P. No. 13977/90 on 24-9-1990 which was allowed by this Court on 5-10-1990 directing the authorities to issue licence is respect of Osman Shahi arrack shop in the existing premises. Aggrieved by the order dated 5-10-1990...
B. Lakshmikantha Rao Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)ALT441
Eswara Prasad, J. 1. The appellant's lands were acquired for providing house sites to the Weaker Sections by the respondent under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act', for short). An award was passed by the respondent, granting compensation of Rs. 13,423,50, including solatium and interest etc., for acquiring the lands of the appellant in an extent of Ac 1-09 guntas, situate in Lakshmidevipalli village. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant filed an application dated 25-2-85 (Ex. Rule 1) under Section 18 of the Act and requested the respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court, under Ex. Rule 2. He raised the contention that the extent of the land acquired is more than Ac. 1-09 guntas and that the compensation paid is too low. The respondent referred the matter to the Civil Court, namely, Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem and the matter was numbered as OP No. 129/82. 2. Before the learned Subordinate Judge, the appellant filed a claim statement claiming that the Government acquir...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Rayalaseema Papers Mills Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR156(AP)
1. The following questions is sought to be referred : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, was justified in holding that the Central subsidy cannot be deducted from the actual cost of the assets for purposes of calculating depreciation ?' The question is directly covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Godavari Plywoods Ltd. : [1987]168ITR632(AP) . 2. Therefore, this income-tax case is dismissed....
Chintapatla Arvind Babu and anr. Vs. Smt. K. Balakistamma @ Bhargavi a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT319
ORDERNeeladri Rao, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 7 of 1990, D.M.C, Nagar Kurnool are the revision petitioners. The suit was filed for injunction in regard to the house bearing No. 15-38. The plaintiffs claim that the plaint schedule property belongs to the 1st plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff is the tenant therein. The defendants contend that their father Srinivasa Chan purchased plot bearing No. 44 Class-D to an extent of 200 square yards under a registered sale deed No. 480/60 dt 17-5-1960 from the National Educational Society of Nagar Kurnool and constructed the houses bearing Nos. 15-38,15-39 and 15-40 after obtaining permission from the panchayat and the 2nd defendant is their tenant in house bearing No. 15-38. It was further urged for the defendants that the father of 1st plaintiff purchased plot bearing No. 43 Class-D of an extent of 200 square yards through a registered sale deed No. 478/60 dt. 17-5-1960 from the same National Educational Society and constructed houses bearing Nos...
Bhagyanagar Traders Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Charminar Circle
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: [1992]85STC558(AP)
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J. and Lakshmana Rao, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. 2. The petitioner is a trading firm carrying on business in the sale of seeds and foodgrains. It was registered under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, with the Commercial Tax Officer, Charminar Circle, Hyderabad. 3. For the assessment year 1985-86, the petitioner herein purchased maize and til-seeds for Rs. 38,342 and Rs. 5,38,515, respectively, from registered dealers in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 4. Til-seeds and maize are both liable to sales tax at the point of first purchase within the State of Andhra Pradesh under entries 3 and 18 of the Third Schedule to the A.P. General Sales Tax Act. These are declared goods. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is a case of second purchase in the hands of the petitioner and that they filed declarations to that effect before the ass...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Srinivasa Trading Company
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: [1991]82STC221(AP)
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J. and Lakshman Rao, J. 1. We are concerned in this case with the assessment year 1980-81. The Deputy Commissioner for Appeals had levied a penalty of Rs. 69,503 under sub-section (2) of section 7-A of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 in relation to the goods in respect of which the petitioner had sought to claim exemption on the ground that they were second purchases by him. On verification it was found that it was not a case of second purchase. The Deputy Commissioner felt that the bills produced for showing the second purchase by the respondent were false bills. The Deputy Commissioner also found that the respondent had sought to claim exemption by knowingly producing false bills. The Tribunal, on appeal, found that there is no material to show that the respondent-assessee had knowingly produced false bills. The assessee submitted that the purchases were supported by purchase bills and that they were effected through brokers and that the assessee did not know ...
Nidiginti Ganganna Alias Channakkayalodu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)ALT668
Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 190 of 1985 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Cuddapah who was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and one year respectively for the offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. All the sentences were, however directed to run concurrently.2. The appellant was tried for rive charges viz., for causing the death of Vengappa by throwing a bomb at him punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for attempting to commit murder Kullayappa and P. Krishnaiah by throwing bombs and causing injuries punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Cods and for possession and use of explosive substances punishable under Sees. 3 and 5 of the Ex...
Rf (Rasat and Farhat) Charitable Trust, Hyderabad Vs. Special Deputy C ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: AIR1992AP130; 1991(1)ALT598
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. Whether reference to civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be directed, on the facts of the case, is the question that falls for consideration in this appeal.2. The acquisitin of the land and building belonging to the petitioner-Trust under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956 for the purpose of execution of a housing scheme by the Housing Board, has given rise to this writ proceeding. Under Section 40 of the Housing Board Act, the Housing Board may acquire the land either by entering into an agreement with the land owners or by way of compulsory acquisition in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as modified by the A. P. Housing Board Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Housing Board Act declares that 'the acquisition of any land or any interest therein for the purpose of this Act shall be deemed to be acquisition for a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act...
A.P. State Electricity Board, Hyderabad and Others Vs. M/S. Shanti Cas ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)ALT69
ORDERSardar Ali Khan, J. 1. The twowrit appeals arise out of a common order which are fit to be disposed of by a common judgment. Writ appeal No.1149 of 90 arises out of W.P. No. 9367/88 filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or a direction declaring the action of the respondents in disconnecting the power supply to the petitioner on 13-6-88, basing merely on inferences and surmises, including the letter No. DEE/O/ HUP/Coml/ 1843/88 dt.14-6-88 of the third respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, void and highhanded. Writ appeal No. 1150/90 arises out of W.P. No. 11454/90 in which the prayer is for issue of a writ of mandamus declaring the order dt/-2-7-90 made in Ref. No. CE/ CZ/CDP/C & P/221/F. A. 61/ ATP/1606/90 dt/-2-6/7-90, confirming the final assessment made by the fourth respondent in Ref. No. SAT/ 1850/D. HUP/D. No.704/89 dt./-7-3-1989, as being highly illegal, arbitrary, contrary to taw, unjust and void and to be set aside.2. The petitioner in both the writ petitions, viz.,...
N. Chenchuramaiah Vs. Syed Nawabjan @ Rahamthulla
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT416
ORDERNeeladri Rao, J.1. The tenant who is the respondent in R.C. 2/76 on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif, Nellore) is the revision petitioner. The eviction was prayed for on four grounds including the ground for bona-fide requirement. The Rent-Controller ordered eviction on the grounds of bonafide requirement and that the tenant secured alternative accommodation as contemplated under Section 10(2) (v) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Rent Control Act'). RCA 10/80 filed by the tenant was allowed. Then the landlord preferred CRP 151/83. The same was allowed and the matter was remanded to the appellate court for considering afresh in regard to the following two points viz., (i) Whether the respondent landlord has got bona fide requirement for personal occupation of the petition,-schedule premises and (ii) whether the appellant-tenant secured alternative accommodation. After remand the learned Subordinate Judge held the t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »