Andhra Pradesh Court July 1994 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.
Andhra Conductors (P.) Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-01-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC320(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The question which is canvassed in these revision cases is common, therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The question is 'whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Central excise duty amounts relating to sales, under a special scheme reimbursable to the petitioner as an incentive, shown in the invoices without being collected from the buyer, would form part of the sale consideration so as to be taxable turnover.' 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sakthi Engineering Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh in support of his contention that they do not form part of turnover. A similar question came up for consideration of the Division Bench of this Court in that case and it was held that tax on such excise duty was not payable by the customer, namely, the Electricity Board as it did not form part of the taxable turnover. But the learned Governm...
Kondaveeti Pranchis Vs. Mallarapu Lurdamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)ALT425
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. Two questions of frequent application, arise in this Civil Revision Petition:(i) Whether the provisions of Rule 3-A of Order XVIII C.P.C., are mandatory; and(ii) Whether the Court can grant permission to a party to the suit/ proceedings to examine himself as a witness after he had already examined other witnesses on his behalf.2. The questions arise in the following circumstances:The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S. No. 80 of 1986 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal. The sole respondent is defendant No. 6 in the said suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as per their array in the suit. The suit was filed for perpetual injunction against 14 defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit land. After the plaintiff closed his evidence, the sixth defendant examined one witness as D.W.I. Later she came into the witness box as D.W.2. In the course of her ex...
Srikanth Spinners, Rep. by Its Proprietor K. Rajesham Kalakal Vs. Stat ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)ALT582
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Siddipet in O.S.No. 44/89 regarding I.A.No. 412/92. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.2. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Even when the matter was taken up yesterday, there was no such representation on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Advocate for the respondent has been heard and the matter is being disposed of on merits.3. The plaintiff is a Bank. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 14,70,000/-. The defendant resisted the suit on various grounds by filing written statement on 26-6-1991. Issues were also framed on 6-1-1992 and when the matter was set down for recording the evidence during trial, the defendant filed LA. No. 412/92 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement by setting up a counter-claim. The basis for this appears to be that there was a fire a...