Andhra Pradesh Court January 1994 Judgments

Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. R.K. Ragala and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1994AP238; 1994(2)ALT28

ORDERJ. Eswara Prasad, J.1. This writ appeal arises out of the judgment of a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9275/87, quashing the proceedings issued by the 2nd appellant, dated 26-3-1989.2. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein questioning the show cause notice dated 26-3-1989 issued by the 2nd appellant -- District Collector, East Goda-vari, calling upon the first respondent-petitioner to show cause as to why the status certificate issued in his favour declaring him at 'Konda Kapu' should not be cancelled and why he should not be declared as 'kapu' or 'telaga', as illegal and arbitrary, predetermined and biased. The contention of the first respondent was that the social status certificates were issued in his favour to the effect that he is konda kapu, which is a scheduled tribe after enquiries, and that at least two such enquiries were held by the concerned revenue authorities, as well as the Inspector-General of Police, CID, Hyderabad, in the years 195...

Gopal and Co. a Registered Partnership Firm Rep. by Its Partners V.K. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(1)ALT410

S. Parvatha Rao, J.1. The appellant is the defendant is O.S. No. 21 of 1984 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge's Court at Nizamabad and the respondent is the plaintiff who instituted the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 59, 318-81 ps. with costs and future interest. That suit was decreed ex parte on 26-12-1988 as the defendant and his counsel were called absent. The defendant preferred I.A. No. 78 of 1989 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the said ex parte decree of 26-12-1988. The learned Subordinate Judge, after hearing both sides, by his order dated 18-7-1989 set aside the ex parte decree on condition that the defendant should deposit half of the decretal amount and costs on or before 1-8-1989 and that 'in case of failure to deposit on or before the said date', the I.A. would stand dismissed.2. The defendant approached this Court on 18-7-1989 by way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1109 of 1989. That C.M.A. was admitted on 28-7-1989...

indo Swing Limited, (Now Malhotra Shaving Products Ltd.) Vs. Commercia ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1995]98STC152(AP)

V. Sivaraman Nair, J.1. Petitioner is an assessee under the first respondent, Commercial Tax Officer. In respect of the assessment for the assessment year 1987-88, the first respondent passed an order on May 10, 1991 determining the tax payable by the petitioner Rs. 27,64,413.16. Since the petitioner had paid excess amount towards tax, he issued form 'C' refund order for Rs. 6,09,778.53. It was also stated that amount would be adjusted towards tax for the year 1991-92. The assessment for the year 1991-92 was completed on October 12, 1993 without adjusting the refund resulting in demand of Rs. 2.40 lakhs. Petitioner has disputed the said amount and filed an appeal. He also wrote a letter requesting the first respondent that the demand for 1991-92 was wrong since an amount of Rs. 6,09,778.53 was due to him according to form 'C' refund order. 2. Apparently after receiving the above letter, the first respondent issued a notice dated December 28, 1993 requiring the petitioner to produce boo...

Jampala Ram Gopal Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and Registering ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1995]97STC633(AP)

A. Lakshmana Rao, J.1. In all these writ petitions the validity of the notices dated December 18, 1993 issued to the respective petitioners under section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') read with rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules'), calling upon them to show cause why they shall not be required to furnish additional security which is equal to half the sales tax due for the year 1992-93, is questioned. Therefore, they are disposed of by a common order. 2. All the petitioners are dealers in turmeric. They got themselves registered under section 12 of the Act in different years. At the time of registration, it is stated that each petitioner was asked to furnish security in a sum of Rs. 2,000 under sub-section (7) of section 12 of the Act and the same had been furnished in the prescribed manner. While so, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and the registering authority served the impugned notice da...

Syndicate Bank and anr. Vs. P. Bhaskar and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (1995)ILLJ782AP

Sivaraman Nair, J. 1. This appeal arises from the judgment of our learned brother P.L.N. Sarma, J. allowing Writ Petition No. 16059/86 declaring circular No. 360/78/BC/IRD/20dt. Dec 12, 1978 as null and void and directing the 1st respondent to implement the pre-existing service conditions of the petitioners so as to refix the basic salary in the category of Junior Officers, reckoning special allowance/notional special allowance of the Special Assistants/clerks in fixing their basic pay in the category of junior officers with all consequential monetary benefits. 2. The controversy which is involved in this writ petition is in a very short compass. It involves the interpretation of Section 19(3) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The basic facts, which are necessary for understanding the controversy, are not in very serious dispute. The learned single Judge found that the conditions of service which are a...

E. Sumathamma Vs. the State of A.P. Through Its Chief Secretary to Gov ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(1)ALT396

1. This petition is filed seeking writ of habeas corpus questioning the order dated 22-12-1993 passed by the second respondent in Cr.No. 4904/93/F1 directing detention of the petitioner's husband - E. Thirupathi Reddy - for a period of three months on the allegation that he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order since he is indulging in sale of uncertified and cheap liquor endangering public health.2. When the writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court comprising two of us - M.N. Rao & P. Ramakrishnam Raju, JJ., - one of the contentions raised before the Division Bench was that neither the impugned order of detention nor the grounds supplied to the detenu specifically mentioned that the detenu is a boot legger and, therefore, the order is vitiated on that ground on the authority of two Division Bench judgments of this Court in C. Venkataiah v. Commissioner of Police, 1989 (3) ALT 230 and Shaik Shikinder v. Govt. of A.P., : 1991...

Agarwal Industries Ltd. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1997]104STC316(AP)

ORDERD. Reddeppa Reddi, J.1. The petitioner, an industry manufacturing vanaspathi, an edible oil, has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to provide concession in its favour to pay sales tax arrears with 18 per cent interest thereon, due under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, as on February 28, 1991 in 24 monthly equal instalments commencing from November 1, 1992, and the tax due for the period from March 1, 1991 to February 28, 1992, with 18 per cent interest thereon in 36 monthly equal instalments commencing from March 1, 1994 as was given to Tungabhadra Industries Limited, which is also an industry manufacturing vanaspathi, under G.O. Rt. No. 1337, Industries and Commerce (BIFR) Department, dated December 21, 1992. It may be mentioned here that its earlier petition - W.P. No. 17009 of 1992 for the same relief has been disposed of by judgment dated March 1, 1993, with the following direction : '...........In view of the statements by both the counsel, it ...

G. Krishna Moorthy Chetty Vs. K.V. Chowdary and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. According to the complainant one K.V. Chowdary the opposite party No. 1 and Gopichand, the opposite party No. 2 were erstwhile partners in Pioneer Equity Consultancy (Share and Stock Exchange). The complainant case is that as seen from the complaint that the opposite parties failed to deliver 200 shares of Essar Gujarat Ltd., which he instructed them to purchase at the rate of 106.05 Ps. and sell 50 shares of M.M. Rubber Company Ltd., at Rs. 31.50 Ps. According to the complainant the delivered 50 shares of M.M. Rubber Ltd., to the opposite parties. He further stated that in addition to above they are due to complainant in a sum of Rs. 11,509/- as on 2.3.92. He enclosed the statement of account along with the complaint. In the statement of account he was shown 200 shares of Essar Gujarat against date No. 7.2.92 the entry reads as follows: Essar Gujarat BUY 106.05 for share, 200 shares this amount was shown as total purchase Rs. 21,210/- and after givi...

Sheriff Iqbal HussaIn Ahmad Vs. Kota Venkata Subbamma and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1994AP164; 1994(1)ALT229

1. At issue in these two Letters Patent Appeals is:'When a specific relief for possession is sought for by a civil action in common law remedy, can a discretion be exercised by the Court to grant a decree for compensation/ damages by invoking the doctrine of equity, in spite of the factual finding that the plaintiff has got right to recover possession.'2. The facts briefly stated, thus, are:Plaintiffs 1 and 2 had instituted O.S. No. 37/71 and O.S. No. 248/71 for recovery of possession of suit schedule properties. In O.S. No. 37/71, the property comprised is, structures covering 72 sq. yards and odd. In O.S. No. 248/71, it is structures covering 49 sq. yards and odd. The property in O.S. No. 37/71 was purchased by D2 and D3 by a registered sale deed dated 27-11-1969. Ex. A115 is the registration extract. The property in O.S. No. 248/71 was purchased by D7 and another and the latter's LRs. are D2 to D6. DI was a lessee of the suit proeprties. The property in O.S. No. 248/71 was sold on 1...

Valluri Jaganmohini Seetharama Lakshmi and Another Vs. Kopparthi Ramac ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1994AP284; 1994(1)ALT217

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal raises two important questions of law as to(1) Whether making a provision for pocket expenses amounts to maintenance capable of enlarging into a fulfledged right under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956; and (2) Whether the defendant in a suit is obliged to prove the Will even in the face of admission of the Will by the plaintiff in the plaint.2. The facts briefly stated, thus, are:Ramchander Rao and Venugopal, Rao were consanguine brothers. Laxminarayana was the son of Ramachandar Rao and he was adopted by Venugopal Rao i.e., his junior paternal uncle as the latter had no issues. As the consent of his wife was necessary; Venugopalrao sought the consent of his wife Seethamahalaxmi. Venugopalrao thought it fit to secure the interests of his wife at the time of adoption of Laxminarayana so at to ensure that she does not suffer for her day-to-day expenses. As such, he executed registered settlement deed dated 15-1-1941 and simul...