Andhra Pradesh Court February 1995 Judgments

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gurunanak Engineering Corporation

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(1)ALT771; [1995]97STC480(AP)

Syed Shah Mohammad Quadri, J.1. In these revisions, filed by the State against the common order of the Tribunal, the question that arises for consideration is : 'Whether biscuit baking oven falls within entry 38(iv) or entry 83 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act ?' 2. The assessee is a dealer registered under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. It is a dealer in biscuit baking ovens, dall mills machinery and oil storing machines. The turnover which relates to sales of biscuit baking machines/ovens, was taxed by the assessing authority under entry 83 of the First Schedule. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes revised the order of assessment under section 20 of the Act and held the same to be taxable under entry 38(iv). On appeal against the order of the revising authority, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal restored the order of the assessing authority holding the turnover as taxable under entry 83 of Schedule I by its order dated March 17...

Aradhyula Ramatarakamma Vs. Badineni Anjaneya Vara Prasada Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(1)ALT550

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This Revision is directed against the order dated 25-9-1992 passed by the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, in I.A. No. 1572 of 1987 in Original Suit No. 37 of 1982. The said petition was filed before the Court below purporting to be Under Section 151 CPC to record the compromise basing on Ex.A-1, which was an agreement entered inter se the petitioner and the defendant is the respondent. The plaintiff is the petitioner and the defendant is the respondent. The petitioner has instituted the suit for specific performance of contract against the respondent relating to the land in O.S. No. 37 of 1982 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur. While the suit was pending, compromise was entered into under Ex.A-1 inter se the petitioner and the respondent at the instance of the elders and well-wishers under which the suit was not to proceed, in consideration of the respondent paying Rs. 10,000/- and also delivering an extent of Ac.3-75...

Pramod Kumar Sharma and ors. Vs. Upender Kumar Agarwal

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(1)ALT539

ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. These two revision petitions arise out of a common order passed in I.A. Nos. 931/91 and 932/91 in O.S.No. 1849/89 dated 21-2-1994 by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. I.A.No. 931/91 was filed Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 92 days in filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit dated 21-3-1991. The petitioners in these two petitions were defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff in the suit - O.S.No. 1849/89, which was filed for recovery of money based on an award. The decree was sought for Rs. 1,72,500/- with future interest as decreed. Since the defendants did not file any written statement for a long time, they were set ex parte on 7-2-91 and after recording evidence of the plaintiff by the Court, the suit was decreed ex parte on 21-3-91. The defendants filed the petitions stated above on 3-7-91. Although the delay was found to be 102 d...

P. Thippanna Vs. Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Anant ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (1996)ILLJ530AP

ORDERLingraj Rath, J. 1. The sole question which falls for decision in this case is in the forum in which an appeal presented under Section 41(3) of the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1966 was to be heard after the passing of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. The petitioner was appointed as Accountant under respondent No. 3 in January, 1985. His services were terminated on April 30, 1987 which he challenged by way of appeal under Section 41 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act. 1966, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1966 Act'. The appeal was disposed of on July 30, 1988 refusing to reinstate him in service but directing payment of compensation in lieu thereof. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order under Section 41(3) of the 1966 Act on February 3, 1989 but on March 21, 1989 respondent No. 1 before whom the appeal had been preferred, dismissed it as not maintainable holding that under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as...

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Pallavi Potteries

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(2)ALT208; [2003]133STC41(AP)

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The question urged before us by the learned Government Pleader in this tax revision case, filed by the Revenue, is whether stoneware glazed pipes are 'general goods' or do they fall within the meaning of 'water supply and sanitary fittings' in entry 102 of First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'). The turnover, which is subject-matter of controversy, relates to the assessment year 1982-83. We may point out that by Act 19 of 1986 entry 102A 'Stoneware pipes' has been inserted in the First Schedule. Therefore, the question, now debated before us, has limited application only for the period prior to June 1, 1986.2. The assessee was carrying on business in manufacture and sale of stoneware glazed pipes which were being assessed to sales tax under the Act. During the assessment year in question the assessing authority treated stoneware glazed pipes as 'general goods' and assessed the...

Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Others Vs. M. Raghu Ram

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The case of the complainant, that is, the respondent in this appeal, is that he paid a security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of Maruthi Omni Van in the taxi quota. On payment of consideration, the van was delivered to him. He submitted the necessary documents showing that the vehicle was registered as a taxi, within two weeks from the date of deposit of security amount i.e. R.C. Book of the vehicle etc. The opposite parties have accepted to send the security deposit to the complainant, but they failed to do so. He, therefore, filed a complaint for a direction to the opposite parties i.e., the Manufacturer of Maruthi Udyog Limited and the dealer, Mahalaxmi Motors, for refund of the security deposit amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from 1.6.91 until the realisation and award damages of Rs. 11,000/- and costs of Rs. 500/-. 2. The opposite parties No. 3 filed a counter denying the receipt of Rs. 10,000/- by way of security de...

Apsrtc and Others Vs. Peer Mohammed

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. In O.P. No. 63/93, the District Forum, Adilabad directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay Rs. 9000/- to the complainant or his department towards costs of Submersible Motor and costs of Rs. 500/-. 2. Questioning the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in the O.P. 63/ 93. 3. The respondent herein filed a complaint. His case was on 3.11.1992 he alongwith another constable was deputed to take 7.5 H.P. submersible pumpset and motor for repair to Hyderabad from Bellampalli. They boarded the bus on 3.11.1992 at 11 p.m. and entrusted the motor and pumpset to the opposite parties 2 and 3 i.e., driver and conductor of the said bus and paid the necessary charges for carrying the luggage. It is their case that when they checked up the dicky at Karimnagar, they found that motor was missing. On being questioned, the opposite parties 2 and 3 stated that it is not their duty to safeguard their luggage entrusted to them. Subsequently a compla...