Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Prabha Enterprises Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kothapeta, Guntu ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: [1994]93STC278(AP)
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of shampoos. It established a unit for that purpose. The unit went into production with effect from March 2, 1990. 2. The State Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 498, Industries and Commerce (IA) Department, dated October 16, 1989, extending concessions, namely, investment subsidy and deferment/tax holiday on sales tax. In respect of small-scale industries situated in all the districts in the State five-years' sales tax holiday, subject to a ceiling of rupees thirty-five lakhs of sales tax during the entire holiday period, has been extended. The petitioner, which is a small-scale industry, has claimed the incentive relating to five years' sales tax holiday. Paragraph 5 of the Government Order provides that the incentives offered in the order will not be available for the industries indicated in the annexure to the order. One of the industries mentioned in the annexure is the one relating to manufacture of shampoos. When the petitioner c...
Miss. Rekha Kumari and anr. Vs. Managing Director, A.P. Scheduled Cast ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)ALT679
S.C. Pratap, C.J.1. One R. Kamala was employed as an Attender in the first respondent-Corporation. While in such employment, she expired on 24th October. 1989 in harness leaving behind none else except the first appellant, sister of the deceased and the second appellant, mother of the deceased. Both these appellants made an application to the first respondent-Corporation bringing the above facts to its attention and requesting that either of the appellants may be employed without the medium of the Employment Exchange because there was no other earning member in the family. The Corporation rejected the said application on the ground that G.O. Ms. No. 1005, dated 27th December, 1974 covers the case of only a son or daughter or spouse of a deceased servant and since neither of the appellants fail in that category, the Corporation could not grant the application. Challenging this order .the appellants filed writ petition. The learned single Judge dismissed the same but with an observation ...
C.S. Rangabhattar Vs. C. Choodamani
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-1991
Reported in: AIR1992AP103; 1991(3)ALT278
ORDERSardar Ali Khan, J.1. This C.M.A.arises out of the judgment and decree dt. 6-5-1989 in OP. No. 44 of 1986 on the file of the IInd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2 The petitioner-husband filed the Original Petition under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for annulling the marriage between him and the respondent-wife with the following allegations:--The petitioner married one Rajyalakshmi and got two songs and one daughter through her. The said Rajyalakshmi died in the month of August, 1984 leaving the three minor childleren in distress and there was no one in the family to look after the minor children. The petitioner has also submitted that he had undergone vasectomy operation on 23-11-1983 after the birth of the third child through the deceased wife Rajyalakshmi. It seems that he was persuaded by his parents that he should remarray as they were unable to look after the minor children. Thereafter, one Shri N. Ch. Ragha...
Polleti Raghunadha Reddy Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-special ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-1991
Reported in: AIR1992AP147; 1991(3)ALT330
ORDER1. This Review Petition has been filed to review the Judgment and decree dated 30-8-1988 passed in A. S. No. 419 of 1981.2. The main ground taken for the review is that the Judgment in A.S. No. 419/81 is contrary to the judgment reported in Brig Sahib Singh Kail v. Amritsar Improvement Trust : AIR1982SC940 . The contention of the petitioner is that in the above said judgment of the Supeme Court it is categorically held that only 20 to 33 per cent should be deducted towards development expenses. Nevertheless, in the judgment under review a deduction of 50% has been made towards development expenses, which is said to be contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court. Moreover, it is also urged that in Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector Varanasi : [1988]2SCR1025 it was held that 53% should be deducted towards developmental expenses which is only a printing error. The Supreme Court has arrived at the said per centage of 53 relying on the Judgment in Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amrists...
H.E.H. Nizam Fsii of Hydrabad Vs. Chief Secretary to Government, A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-1991
Reported in: AIR1992AP206; 1991(3)ALT35
ORDER1. The sole petitioner viz., the Nizam VIII of Hyderabad, Mukkram Jah Bahadur, represented by his power of attorney seeks the following relief:--'......directing all the respondents herein toforbear from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of petitioner of 98 acres of land which is not demarcated separately but forming part of 'Chiran Palace' land encircled by a wall of 12 feet covered by Survey No. 403 of Shaikpet village, Hyderabad West Taluk which is the subject-matter of injunction orders in I.A. No. 260/1990 in O.S. No. 203/1990 on the file of learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and which is covered by the final orders of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 903/1990 dated 20th February, 1990 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'There are 14 respondents including the Chief Secretary to Government, Secretaries of some Departments, the Collector, the Chief Conservator...
G. Venkata Ramakrishna Rao and Another Vs. the Government of India, Re ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1992AP67; 1991(2)ALT625
ORDERSardar Ali Khan, J.1. These twoWrit Petitions, viz., W. P. Nos. 1709/90 and 1735/90 raise common questions of law and fact and are, therefore, disposed of by a common judgment. It would be in the fitness of things to take the facts as stated in W.P: No. 1709/90 as the basis for a decision in both the writ petitions.2. The brief facts of the matter are as follows:-- The petitioners are the existing operators. They filed W.P. No. 1709/90 for the issue of an appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 and 2, viz., the Government of India, represented by its Secretary, Transport Department, Central Secretariat, New Delhi and the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, R&B; Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad; to implement sub-section (3) of Section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988', by limiting the number of stage carriages operating on the town service routes in Bhimavaram Town, West Godavari ...
Vavillapalli Rambabu Vs. Merakamodidam Prajaparishad Rep. by Its Presi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-1991
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT137
ORDERParvatha Rao, J.1. This Writ Petition relates to the Shandi rights of Uttaravalli Wednesday Shandi for the year 1991-92. The petitioner herein and another were the bidders at an auction conducted on 28-3-1991 for the said shandi rights pursuant to a notification issued by the 1st respondent which was published in Vizianagaram District Gazette Supplement No. 10/91 dated 28-2-1991. The petitioner's bid for Rs. 18,500/- was the highest in the said auction.2. The petitioner contends that the 1st respondent is bound to confirm the auction and allow him to have the shandi rights for collection of 'Aaseellu' from the vendors in the said Shandi. The 3rd respondent i.e., the Mandal Development Officer of the 1st respondent issued letter No. 16/91/Cdated4-4-1991 stating that collection of Wednesday Shandi Aaseellu from 1 -4-1991 in Uttaravalli Village was given to the petitioner subject to the approval of the general body of the 1st respondent and that if it was not approved by the general ...
Udaya Gowri Vs. A.P. Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)ALT661
ORDER1. The petitioner is a de facto complainant. She was examined as P.W. 1. After detailed cross-examination, the evidence was closed on 5-6-1990. As a matter of fact, cross-examination was conducted on 22-12-1988, 23-12-1988, 29-12-1988, 2-1-1989, 9-1-1989, 11-1-1989, 12-1-1989, 28-1-1989, 19-1-1989, 20-1-1989 and 24-1-1989 : she was recalled for further cross-examination on 1-6-1990 and 6-6-1990. It is thereafter that the respondent first accused filed an application on 20-3-1991 to recall P.Ws. 1 and 6 for further cross-examination. No reasons are mentioned as to why the Court shall recall witnesses for further cross-examination excepting a vague and general statement that the previous advocate on record, who appeared for the accused, 'could not put some important questions' and this caused prejudice to A-1. The Trial Judge passed order 'Heard. Re-call P.Ws. 1 and 6 on payment of process on 24-4-1991.' Counsel for the petitioner submits that the requirements of S. 311 of the Code ...
M/S. Telangana Spining and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Others Vs. the Regio ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-1991
Reported in: AIR1992AP128
ORDERThese two writ petitions arise out of the common facts and they can be disposed of together by a common judgment. For appreciating the points involved in these petitions, I will state the facts in Writ Petition No. 9768 of 1987.2. The first petitioner is the Public Limited Company and the second petitioner is the Managing Directorr of the first petitioner. They challenge the. order passed by the Regional 'Provident Fund-Commissioner,Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad the first res-pendent in proceedings No. AP/2905/PD Cell/Hyd-1-87/3751, dated 24-6-1987 imposing damages of Rs. 14,737-85 ps, as illegal and arbitrary and pray to call for the records relating to the said order and quash the same.3. It is' stated that the first petitioner Textile Industry was experiencing recessionary market and has gone into financial difficulties. Therefore it could not pay provident fund contributions in time but sent the contributions with delay. The first respondent by the impugned order imposed damages f...
Eid Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Labour Court, Guntur and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)ALT161; (1992)IILLJ580AP
ORDER1. The employer M/s. E. I. D. Parry (India) Ltd., is the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'Parry Company', prays for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the 1st respondents in I.D. Nos. 12 of 1986 and 34 of 1986 and quash the common award dated March 25, 1987. 2. Respondents 2 to 4 were the employees of Parry Company. It seems a settlement was entered into between Parry Company and the Parry's Staff and Labour Union, hereinafter referred to as 'the Union', under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act on June 17, 1978. That award, inter alia, provided that the strength of the staff of the Company might be fixed at 265 and that 24 causal workmen be made permanent as 'Pool workmen'. After the expiry of the period of that settlement a fresh settlement was entered into between the Parry Company and the Union on July 24, 1982 under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act under which it was agreed that not less than 100 workm...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »