Andhra Pradesh Court August 1991 Judgments

A.P. State Electricity Board Vs. the Chief General Manager, Telecommun ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Lakshmana Rao, President: 1. The complaint is the A.P. State Electricity Board. It is alleged that in respect of Telephone No. 227220 the complainant has received bills dt. 27.7.89,21- 9-89 and 21-11-89 for Rs. 15,665/-, Rs. 74,301/- and Rs. 20,952/- respectively. The grievance of the complainant is that during the period from 21- 7-88 to 21-5-89 the bimonthly bill amount in respect of this Telephone number never execeeded Rs. 5,000/- and that the excess billing was either due to the faulty recording of calls at the Exchange or as a result of misuse of the complainants telephone connection by certain miscreants. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party, various allegations-made in the complaint are denied. 2. Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 provides for reference of the dispute to an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the matter...

Sikender Picture Palace Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1993]88STC287(AP)

A. Lakshmana Rao, J.1 .The petitioner is a cinema exhibiting films at Udayagiri, Nellore district. It had been paying tax under section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is stated that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Entertainment Tax Officer under the then section 5 of the Act agreeing to pay the tax under that provision for the period August 27, 1983 to August 26, 1984. During that period, the State Government issued Ordinance No. 9 of 1984 on March 25, 1984. amending section 5 of the act with the retrospective effect from January 1, 1984. Under the amended provisions of section 5, the exhibitor is given option to pay the entertainment tax specified thereunder in lieu of the tax payable under section 4 of the Act. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the Entertainments Tax Officer visited the petitioner-theatre on April 14, 1984 and that the proprietor of the petitioner-theatre had given the foll...

Phoolchand Lalith Kumar and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1992]196ITR302(AP)

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The short question that arises in these writ petitions is whether the notices issued to the petitioner under section 148 of the income-tax Act, 1961, are valid. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm. It is carrying on business as commission agent in the market at Guntur. It also purchases and sells other agricultural produce. It is an assessee under the Income-tax Act. The assessments of the petitioner for the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 were completed. The respondent issued notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act to reopen the assessment under section 147(a) for the above said years on the ground that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. In response to the notices, the petitioner requested the respondent to furnish reasons for reopening the assessment. The respondent communicated the reasons by his letter dated March 27, 1987. Then the petitioner filed returns under protest and chall...

B. Lokhanadham @ B. Lokeshwara Rao Vs. State and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: I(1992)DMC1

Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J.1. The husband filed this petition to quash the proceedings in M.C. No. 13/89 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. Parvatipuram which was filed under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month to the wife and Rs. 500/- to each of the children towards their maintenance. It is stated that the revision petitioner (husband) married the second respondent harein on 21-8-81 and both of them lived happily till two children (respondents 3 and 4) were born. Subsequently there were misunderstandings which resulted in the husband filing O.P. No. 49/85 in Subordinate Judge's Court, Vizianagaram for divorce. During the pendency of that O.P. the husband was directed to pay interim maintenance at Rs. 250/- per month to the wife. Subsequently, OP. 49/85 was dismissed on 22-6-1987. It is stated that an appeal is filed to the High Court challenging the decision in O.P.No. 49/85 and it is pending. The learned Counse...

Gram Panchayat, Nakkabokkalapadu, Ballikuruva Mandal Rep. by Its Sarpa ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1991(3)ALT44

ORDERParvatha Rao, J.1. This Writ Petition relates to fishery rights in Konidena P.W.D. tank in Ballikurava Mandal of Praka6am district. The petitioner is Gram Panchayat of Nakkabokkalapadu village within the limits of which the said tank is situated. It questions the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh i.e., the 1st respondent herein, in its Memo. No. 67776/Fish.II/ 90-6 dated 15-5-1991 extending the lease period for the fishery rights in the said tank upto 30-6-1991 in favour of the 4th respondent heroin as a special case and setting aside the orders passed by the Collector of Prakasam district in his Proceedings No. 1150/A/90 dated 27-3-1991 allotting the fishery rights in the said tank on lease basis in favour of the petitioner herein for a period of 3 years from Fasli 1400 to 1402 i.e., from 1st July, 1990 to 30th June, 1993 (each Fasli is from 1st July to 30th June of the following year.)2. The petitioner contends that the grant of fishery rights in its favour in the said t...

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vs. Maddisetti Penchalaiah

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1991(3)ALT671

M.N. Rao, J.1. This appeal by the Public Prosecutor is from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Nellore in Sessions Case No: 207 of 1989 acquitting the sole accused under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of offences under Sections 449, 376, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.Mavilla Kistamma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), aged 15 years, was the daughter of one Subramanyam, resident of Annareddipalem within the limits of the Police Station, Buchireddypalem, Nellore District. Maddisetti Penchalaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was also a resident of the same village. The accused wanted to marry the deceased and sent proposals through his paternal uncle to the parents of the deceased. But, the latter did not agree for the alliance, and were contemplating to marry the deceased to one Munaiah son of Annam Subbaramaiah, resident of Jonnawada village. The prosecution case was that, the accused being disappointed in his attempt t...

Nagireddi Siva and anr. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1992CriLJ1339

Bhaskar Rao, J.1. A-1 and A-2 are the appellants. They challenge their convictions under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentences to suffer imprisonment for life and R.I., for two years respectively imposed thereunder. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on 27-10-'89 at about 11-00 p.m., at Kondakarla village they caused the death of one Nagireddi Venkata Eswara Prakash (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') by throttling him with a rope and also used the evidence regarding his death to disappear besides giving wrong information that the deceased died of excessive drinking of alcohol for screening the offence of murder. 3. In this appeal admittedly there is no direct evidence as regards the offence under section 302, IPC. The trial Court convicted the accused on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. According to the learned counsel, Sri Padmanabha Reddy the circumstantial evidence is not conclusive to hold the accused liable for the off...

Palakol Co-operative Sugars Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1993]202ITR681(AP)

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. The petitioner is a co-operative society and an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture of sugar. Its accounting year ends on September 30, of each year. For the accounting year ending on September 30, 1985, which is relevant for the assessment year 1986-87, the petitioner could not file its return on or before June 30, 1986, the time allowed by sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On June 27, 1986, it made a request in Form No. 6 seeking extension of time for filing the return till September 30, 1986, on the ground that the return forms were not available and that the report of the audit under section 44AB from the chief auditor of the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was awaited. However, that request was rejected. But the petitioner field its return on September 30, 1986, disclosing a loss of Rs. 68,13,996, which is the subject-matter of controversy. It appears that the petitioner had unabsorbed loss ...

S.V. Subba Rao. Divl. Manager, Apsrtc and ors. Vs. the Board of Direct ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1992(1)ALT70

ORDERSivaraman Nair, J.1. Our learned brother Ramanujulu Naidu, J. referred this Writ Petition division bench, the question whether'once an employee of the A.P.S.R.T.C. is found fit for promotion to a selection category by the Selection Committee constituted therefor, his seniority in the lower category can never be disturbed and shall be maintained in the higher category. In other words, the expression 'merit' employed in Rule 4 (b) of the Regulations does not permit further division or classification such as 'outstanding', 'very good', 'good' and 'satisfactory'.'Our learned brother held that 'the question affects a large body of employees of the A.P.S.R.T.C. and there is no authoritative pronouncement of this court on this question'. That is how this writ petition is before us.2. The controversy involved in this Writ Petition relates to promotion to the post of Divisional Managers in the A.P.S.R.T.C. Petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 were Assistant Mechanical Engineers/Assistant Tra...

Kavati Nagesh Vs. Kavati Krishnaveni

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1992(1)ALT532

Upenderalal Waghray, J.1. This appeal is filed by the husband against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, in O.P.No.265 of 1987 directing that the petition for declaration that marriage is a nullity and also for divorce under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, shall be returned for presentation to the proper Court.2. We have heared the counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the respondent-wife. In view of the fact that this marriage O.P. was filed some time in the year 1987 and the petitioner's evidence was completed and as the wife had not turned up, the matter was argued and the impugned order was passed, we have considered it appropriate to examine the material on record and dispose of the appeal on merits also. This is because any remand would further entail unnecessary delay in the disposal of the marriage O.P.3. The parties were married at Vijayawada on 21-5-1986. They have proceeded to Guntur where the husband resides and on 22-5-1986, ...