Andhra Pradesh Court February 1995 Judgments

Gopireddy Sujatha Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainants husband insured his life with the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 53,000/- commencing from 1.1.90 to 1.1.2005. The monthly premium payable was Rs. 322-90 ps. He paid the first instalment on 1.1.90. On 18.7.92 he sent the premium for the months of April, May and June, 1990 with late fee. Thereafter the complainants husband again sent money order on 15.9.90 from Pillalamarri Post Office, Nalgonda towards the premium instalments due on 1.7.90,1.8.90 and 1.9.90 for the months of July, August and September, 1990. On 16.9.90 he went to his agricultural farm and tried to switch on the electric motor pumpset, and accidentally received current shock and fell down. Thereafter he succumbed to the injuries and died on 16.9.90. The complainant being his wife and nominee under the policy preferred a claim on 8.11.90 claiming the double accident benefit under the policy. The opposite party on 1.12.90 informed the complainant that the policy lapsed ...

K. Babu Prasad Reddy Vs. Dr. Rajasekhar Reddy

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainant aggrieved by the order of the dismissal of the complaint in C.D. No. 240 of 1993 by the District Forum filed this appeal. The complainant's case was that he booked the Kalyana Mandapam managed by the Opposite Party on 3.10.1992 for (24) hours commencing from 12.00 noon of 19.12.92 to 12.00 noon of 20.12.92 and paid a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- towards advance on the date of booking, that is, 31.10.92. According to him, due to change of the circumstances, he cancelled the booking on 4.11.92 and intimated the same personally to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party leased out the Kalyana Mandapam to some other person between 12.00 noon of l9.12.92 and 12.00 noon of 20.12.92 and promised to refund the amount of Rs. 2,600/-. As the Opposite Party failed to refund, he gave a legal notice and filed this complaint demanding the refund of Rs. 2,800/- that is, Rs. 2,600/- deposit amount plus Rs. 200/- towards legal notice charges, with interest at...

Kum. K. Madhuri Vs. University of Health Science, Gunadala, Vijayawada ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1995AP159

ORDER1.Admission to technical and professional courses is strictly in accordance with merit, subject to permissible protective discrimination provided under the Constitution in favour of certain categories of citizens, is a constitutional creed which flows from the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and the law declared by the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan P. J. v. State of A. P., : (1993)4SCC111 (hereinftfter referred to as 'Unnikrishnan case'). The only question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the respondent-University has adhered to this Constitutional creed and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan case. This question arises in the back-drop of the facts following : 2. The petitioner with an intention to seek admission to MBBS and BDS degree courses appeared for the entrance test conducted in that regard in the year 1994-95 and in that test she secured 796th rank. At this stage Itself it may be noted that n...

Vangala Narasimhacharyulu Vs. the State of A.P. and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1995AP220; 1995(1)ALT371

ORDER1. One Vangala Narasimha-charyulu, Professor of Physics has filed this writ petition as a public interest litigation seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in proposing to sell the properties of Sri Kesavaswamy temple, Kothalaparru village, to an extent Of Acs. 3-00 from out of Acs. 6-82 cents comprised in R. S. No. 27 of Pandithavilluru village, Poduru mandal, West Godavari district by way of private negotiation or otherwise than by a public auction as illegal and arbitrary. Further he has sought for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 4 not to complete the said sale transaction in favour of the fifth respondent by private negotiations.2. The respondents 4 to 5 on service of notice have filed their respective counters whereas no counter is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. The facts are many and legal contentions raised are also many. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I found that the writ petition is entitled to be allo...

Sri Parvati Parameswara Cables Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and or ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(1)ALT727; [1995]99STC110(AP)

S. Parvatha Rao, J.1. The petitioners in these four writ petitions state that they have established new industries registered in 1993 as small-scale industries and that they are eligible for the incentives under G.O.Ms. No. 498 dated October 16, 1989, read with G.O.Ms. No. 117 dated March 17, 1993, of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. They state that they went into commercial production about the middle of 1994, i.e., between May and July, 1994. 2. The petitioners claim that one of the incentives given under the said G.Os. to the small-scale industries is 'sales tax holiday' for a period of five years. It is their contention that under the sales tax holiday incentive they are entitled to collect the sales tax exigible on the goods produced and sold by them during that period of five years up to a maximum limit of Rs. 35,00,000. On their application, they were issued temporary eligibility certificates 'for availment of sales tax exemption'. They are aggrieved by the clause in those cert...

Ganga Bhavanl Timber Depot and Furniture Works Vs. the Divisional Mana ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. Ganga Bhavani Timber Depot and Furniture Works, Vijayawada filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,32,000/- being the loss suffered by him. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are the Divisional Manager and Branch Manager of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Although the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada was made as third opposite party, no relief was claimed against him. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed as against the third opposite party. 2. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant insured the stock in trade consisting of teak and country wood timber with the opposite parties 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs covering the period from 20.7.89 to 19.7.90. Due to severe cyclone on 9.5.1990 followed by strong winds and innundation, the shed constructed for storage of the timber collapsed and most of the stock was damaged or washed out. The complainant assessed the damaged stock as Rs. 1,60,000/- and wa...

Prakash Rathode, Vs. Asifabad, Adilabad District and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1995AP157; 1995(1)ALT535

ORDER1. The writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11 131 of 1992 is the son of the original assignee of the land comprised in Plot No. 11 of Gandhi Chowk, Sirpur, Kagaznagar, whereas the Writ Petition No. 11511 of 1992 is by one Abdul Gaffar, who claims to be the purchaser of the said property. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11131 of 1992 has averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that on 17-1-1964, the second respondent assigned the land in favour of his father. Further, it is averred that somewhere in the year 1976, the third respondent, Abdul Gafoor, forcibly took over the possession of the property and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner filed an application before the second respondent on 22-11-1990 complaining that the third respondent forcibly took over the possession of the land in the year 1976 and seeking the help of the secondrespondent to evict the third respondent and to restore the possession of t...

T.S. Ramesh Chandra and Others Vs. Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Univers ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1995AP343; 1995(1)ALT275

ORDER1. The petitioners 1 and 2 are gentlemen and the petitioner No. 3 is a lady and they have filed this common and joint writ petition seeking a declaration that the whole process of selection adopted by the respondent-University for selection of the candidates for admission to M.V.Sc., course for the academic year 1994-95 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Further, the petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondent-University to re-enact the whole admission process by increasing the total number of seats in the Faculty of Veterinary. Science to 80 and to make admission strictly in conformity with the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 as amendment by G.O.P. No. 646 dated 10th July, 1979, which is hereinafter shortly referred to as 'the Presidential Order'.2. All the petitioners are graduates in Veterinary Science possessing B.V.Sc., degree. All the petitioners with intention to seek admission to Post-G...

Jagnandan Mallik and ors. Vs. Accommodation Controller and Dy. Secreta ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(2)ALT217

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. The residential premises bearing Municipal No. 5-8-329 situate in Chapal Road, Hyderabad, originally belonged to Ms. Mary E. Leake and Miss Theresa Lawlor. The same was sold to the petitioners under a registered sale deed. At the time of sale, the above premises was under the occupation of one D.Kannan as tenant by virtue of allotment made by the Government under Section 3 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act XV of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). When the petitioners filed an application seeking the payment of rents by virtue of their becoming owners of the said premises, the same was acceded to by the Government and the said D.Kannan was directed to pay the rents to the petitioners. D. Kannan had vacated the said building and the petitioners filed an application for release of the building for repairs and for redelivery of the same to the Government. That application was ordered in Memo No. 4862/Accom.C2/76-28, dated 1...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Moghul Durbar

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (1996)130CTR(AP)200; [1995]216ITR301(AP); [1996]85TAXMAN27(AP)

S. Parvatha Rao, J. 1. On the Tribunal refusing to state the case, the Revenue in this petition, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, seeks the following three questions of law referred for the opinion of this Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 from the income of the assessee-firm 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there is no necessity for the assessee to show the source for the deposits 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that in order to bring the entire claim under the provisions of s. 69, the Department should prove that the assessee-firm should be capable of earning equivalent amount either in the previous years or having assets worth more than that amount in order to enable the assessee to either sell or pledge them to realise an amount of ...