Andhra Pradesh Court November 1995 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.
Laxmi Starch Limited, Rep. by Its General Manager, T.G. Pandya Vs. the ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)ALT883
T.N.C. Rangarajan, J.1. These appeals arise from the order of our learned brother G. Bikshapathy J., declining to entertain the writ petitions challenging G.O.Rt.No.1959 and G.O.Rt.No.1960 both dated 23-8-1995, made under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) respectively of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The appellant is a company having a plant for manufacture of starch at Kundara in Kerala, a processing plant for dextrine at Cochin, a liquid glucose manufacturing plant at Kundara and a plant for manufacture of starches and dextrines at Hyderabad. Due to several adverse conditions, the company became sick in April 1989 and approached BIFR which framed a scheme for rehabilitation appointing ICICI as the operating agency. The proposals did not succeed and a fresh rehabilitation scheme was being considered. By that time the accumulated loss of the company was Rs. 22.78 crores as on 31-3-1994 of which the accumulated loss of Hyderabad Unit alone was Rs. 14.17 crores. Hence, on 9-6-1995 the company pu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Novapan India Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: [1997]227ITR710(AP)
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The Revenue sought reference of the following two questions for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have held that capital subsidy granted by the Central Government to the company to the extent of Rs. 11,25,000 was intended to meet the actual cost of the assets of the company within the meaning of section 43(1) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has basis or material for holding that there was no direct or indirect nexus between the subsidy and the cost of acquisition of capital asset ?' 2. The Tribunal declined reference on the ground that the decision of this court in CIT v. Godavari Plywoods Ltd. : [1987]168ITR632(AP) , squarely covers the questions raised in the reference application. In that decision, the Division Bench consisting of Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy and Justice Y.V. Anjaneyulu referr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lohiya Trading Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: [1997]226ITR873(AP)
P. Venkatarama Reddy, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh-II, seeks reference of the following two questions of law arising out of the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by which the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention regarding the mode of calculation of penalty payable : '1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that in view of the non-obstante clause found in section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the term 'assessed tax' occurring in section 271(1)(i)(b) has to be construed de hors the Explanation thereto 2. Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that reading together the provisions of sub-section (1)(i) and (2) of section 271 it is not the amount of advance tax which was actually paid by the registered firm that is material for deduction from the amount of tax payable on the income of a registered firm treated as an unregistered firm under section 271(2), but it is the amount ...
M. Khader Vali Vs. S. Hayat and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)39; II(1996)DMC56
Y.V. Narayana, J.1. The petitioner in CFR 20/92 on the file of the learned I Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Cuddapah, who is the revision petitioner in Crl. Rev. Petition No. 28/92 on the file of the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuddapah filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying this Court to quash the order of the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuddapah dated 30.5.95 made in Crl.R.P. No. 28/92 and to direct the 1 Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Cuddapah to take cognizance of the complaint filed by him in CFR No. 20/92 to secure ends of justice.2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as under. The petitioner is the maternal uncle of the first accused in Cr.No. 33 of 1991 on the file of the 1 Town P.S., Cuddapah, which was subsequently registered as C.C. No. 191 of 1991 on the file of the I Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Cuddapah. A-2 is the daughter of A-l. A-2 married Basheer Ahamed on 28.2.90, A-3 is the son of A-l. A-4 and A-5 are brothers-in...
Management of Hindustan Cables Ltd. Vs. Labour Court, Hyderabad and an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT727
T.N.C. Rangarajan, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the order in Writ Petition No. 11184 of 1983 by which the appellant-company was directed to pay wages to the workmen during the period of strike and lock-out. 2. The factual background to the dispute referred to by the Labour Court, was as follows : The appellant-company is a Government of India undertaking engaged in the manufacture of cables supplied to the telecommunications department. It was having weekly holiday on Sunday. Subsequently, the weekly holiday was changed to Thursday by negotiations. While so, on May 6, 1979 the company proposed staggering holidays among different sections of the workmen so that the factory can work for seven days in a week without being completely closed on one day in the week and a notice was put up to that effect. The respondent-Union opposed the idea on May 12, 1979 and it is said that the company was not willing to reconsider its decision. On June 6, 1979, the workmen went on strike. Negotiations...
Ganta Rama Rao Vs. Biddika @ Boora Sundari @ Sundaramma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALD(Cri)439; 1996(1)ALT(Cri)52; II(1996)DMC685
Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeks to quash the maintenance proceedings in M.C. No. 28 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram.2. The 1st respondent, on behalf of her minor son-the 2nd respondent herein, claimed maintenance against the petitioner stating that when the petitioner was working as Constable in APSP V Battallion at Chintalavalasa Vizianagaram, which was nearer to his native place Lakkaguda, she was working in the quarters where the police were stationed to counter the naxalite attack and the petitioner was one among them staying in those quarters. Both belong to Harijan commu- nity. The 1st respondent's case is that She was unmarried and the petitioner lured her with money and promising her to marry, had sexual intercourse with her and consequently, she became pregnant and gave birth to the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to some other distant place and respondents...
J. Durgappa Vs. Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT18
ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J. 1. The Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ananthapur in I.D. No. 113/89, dated 12-12-1990 is assailed by the Workman. 2. The facts leading to the Award are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clearner in A.P.S.R.T.C. in 1981. While so, on the intervening night of 22-4-1988 he is alleged to have committed some misconducts, thereupon a charge-sheet was issued and after the enquiry was conducted, he was meted out with the punishment by orders dated 31-8-1988 and after availing the appeal remedy unsuccessfully the petitioner filed an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the 1st respondent-Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, challenging the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner submits that the charges as framed against him are not inconsonance with the provisions of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Regulations. Further, there is no sufficient evidence to establish the charges framed against the petitioner. He further as...
Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Limited, Rep. by Its Assistant Company Secre ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT614
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. Who is an 'Occupier under the Factories Act of 1948? Should he be necessarily an owner? Or can any other person be entrusted with such functions? - are the serious questions falling for adjudication in these batch of Writ Petitions.2. An 'Occupier' is one defined under the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 2(n) of the Act defines as to who is the Occupier. Hitherto, it read as follows:'2(n): Occupier of the factory means the person who has ulitmate control over the affairs of the factory and where the said affairs are entrusted to the managing agent such agent shall be deemed to be the Occupier of the factory.'(remaining portion is not relevant here)3. There are catena of decisions interpreting the above word 'Occupier' and I need not state all those decisions as it was a settled law that Occupier is one nominated for that purpose and who had ultimate control over the affairs of the factory. There was no imposition that on...
Modugula Seshireddy and Modugula Satyanarayana Vs. Vuyyuru Subba Reddy ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)ALT635
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 16-8-1993 passed in LA. No. 680/93 in O.S. No. 144 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, dismissing the imp lead petition filed under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. While the plaintiff is the 1st petitioner, the 2nd petitioner is the proposed plaintiff No. 2.2. The 2nd petitioner had instituted a suit representing the plaintiff as a general power of attorney. The plaintiff, Modugula Sheshireddy, is the natural son of the proposed second plaintiff. A suit was filed on his behalf seeking the relief of possession and profits of the suit schedule properties on the premise that Modugula Sheshireddi was the adopted son of M. Subba Reddy and that the adoption took place in the year 1973 and that Subbareddi died in the year 1976 while his wife predeceased him; that the properties were inherited by late Subbareddi through his uncle as his uncle's daughter, M. Lakshmidevamma died intestate; tha...
Shaik Peda Adam and ors. Vs. Shaik Adam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)ALT581
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the Order dated 21-9-1992 allowing the amendment petition of the plaintiffs in I.A. No. 2125 of 1992 in O.S. No. 117 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Ongole.2. The defendants, who opposed unsuccessfully, are the petitioners. The said suit was instituted seeking relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. Plaintiffs and the defendants are the neighbours having house properties. The plaintiffs' complaint is that windows and ventilators were illegally and unlawfully opened by the defendants into the property of the plaintiffs intruding their rights and as such mandatory injunction was sought for, to close the same. Preventive relief of permanent injunction was sought for restraining the defendants from laying the latrine pipe in portion marked P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-5.3. Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit property. In the course of inspection, it was fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »