Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
K. Venkateshwar Rao Vs. Gouru Gouramma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1995
Reported in: I(1996)ACC330; II(1996)ACC158; 1996ACJ1087; 1995(3)ALT43
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident resulting in the death of one late Gowru Sriramulu, who was the husband of R-l and father of respondents 2 to 4. R-1 to R-4 filed O.P. 44 of 1988 and O.P.45 of 1988 under Section 110-A and 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act respectively claiming compensation. The claim of the respondents 1 to 4 was contested by the appellant-owner and the Insurance Company. The learned Trial Judge after appreciation of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle owned by the appellant. Thereafter, the learned Judge proceeded to assess the quantum of compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased. The learned Judge awarded a sum of Rs. 53,316/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 7,500/- towards loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500/- under the Head 'Pain and Suffering' and Rs. 5,000./- towards loss of consorti...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Om Trading Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(AP)514; [1996]220ITR149(AP); [1996]87TAXMAN366(AP)
ORDERS. Parvatha Rao, J. 1. The two questions referred for the opinion of this Court in both the references are : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law to hold that there was no prejudice to Revenue so as to enable the CIT to revise the assessment of the firm for the asst. yr. 1979-80 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the payment of annuity to the widow is not an application of income of the firm but is diversion at source 2. In these references the assessee is the same. The learned counsel for the respondent-assessee points out that the tax involved is less than Rs. 500 and relying on the decisions of the Bombay High Court in CWT vs . Executors of Late D. T. Udeshi : [1991]189ITR319(Bom) and of the Rajasthan High Court in CWT vs . Girdhari Lal Saraf submits that we should decline to answer the references in view of the negligible tax involved. In the Bom...
Commissioner, Tirupathi Municipality Vs. M. Srinivasalu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)ALT26; (1995)IILLJ1028AP
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. Respondents 1 to 29 claiming to be workmen in the establishment of the petitioner-municipality or, NMR basis and further contending that they have been discharging the same functions and duties attached to the regular post, made a joint application before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur by filing a Miscellaneous Petition No. 152 of 1992 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). In that application, the workmen prayed for grant of relief of equal pay for equal work as well as payment of certain sums of money payable to them for having done overtime work. Before the Labour Court, the management contended in its statement of objections that the petitioner-municipality is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act and therefore the M.P. filed by the workmen was incompetent and no relief could be granted by the Labour Court. That was the only contention raised in the counter filed by the pet...
G. Gurucharanam Vs. R. Venkat Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT516
N.T. Hanumanthappa, J. 1. These two appeals are filed challenging the common judgment and decree dated 2-3-1988, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Asifabad in appeals A.S. No. 17/85 and A.S. No. 18/85, wherein the learned Subordinate Judge set aside the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsiff, Luxettipet in O.S. No. 1138/84 on 30-8-85. 2. S.A. No. 401/88 was filed by the first defendant in the suit, whereas S.A. No. 429/88 was filed by the 2nd defendant in the suit. Both the appeals are clubbed and disposed of by a common judgment. The rank of the parties in these appeals referred as in the trial court. 3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction, over the suit schedule property. 4. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these two appeals are as follows:- One Venkateswara Rao was the owner of the Plot measuring about 29 guntas situated in S. No. 87 of Mancherial. Venkateswara Rao had two more sons, namely, Ramgopal Rao...
Koparowthu Krishna Rao Vs. Karlapudi Satya Krishna Vara Prasada Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT561
Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J. 1. The defendant in O.S.No. 2040 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada is the appellant in this appeal. 2. The respondent had filed suit for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum in total Rs. 16,940/- alleging that the appellant on 15-06-1977 had borrowed that amount for discharge of sundry debts and for getting the accident lorry repaired and executed a pronote Ex. A-1 in his favour on the same day. The defendant did not return the amount in spite of notice and therefore, he has filed the suit for recovery of the same. 3. The defendant in his written statement has denied that on 15-06-1977 he had executed a pronote in favour of the respondent. He has denied the signature on the pronote Ex.A-1. He denied that he had to pay sundry expenses and needed money for getting the accident lorry repaired. He alleged that the respondent had no capacity to pay Rs. 15,000/- on that date. He further pleaded that he had onc...
Loya Nagapatharaju and ors. Vs. Loya Gangamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)ALT873
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. This second appeal is from the Judgment and decree of the 1st Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam in A.S. No. 16 of 1987, dated 17-6-1993 setting aside the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 143 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Kaikalur, dated: 1-10-1986.2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.3. The plaintiffs filed the suit, O.S. No. 143 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Kaikalur, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs. As per the averments in the suit, the plaintiffs are brothers and the defendant is their senior paternal aunt. Plaintiffs being minors are represented by their father, Loya Koteswar Rao. Loya Raghavulu, Loya Koteswar Rao and Loya Seetharamaiah are brothers. The defendant is the second wife ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Warangal District Development Fund Coun ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR361(AP)
S. Parvatha Rao, J. 1. Being unsuccessful before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in his application made under sub-section (1) of section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, numbered as R.A. No. 311/(Hyd) of 1989, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh-II, approaches this court by way of the present income-tax case under sub-section (2) of section 256 for reference of the following three questions of law : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the notice in Form No. 10 given to the Income-tax Officer by the assessee-trust for the assessment year 1982-83 on May 2, 1984, after the expiry of the time-limit prescribed under section 139(1), is well within time prescribed under rule 17 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for claiming exemption under section 11(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holdin...
Assistant General Manager, (Osd) Vs. Mahalakshmi Legal and Tax Consult ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT749
ORDERP.S. Mishra, C.J.1. The instant case is one in which we find that hitherto acknowledged the rule of piercing the veil generally in the field of public law, is applicable to the case of the writ petitioner-respondent, who has claimed to have a telephone installed in a premises by the appellant herein in the name of a firm and another in the name of his wife in the same premises, defaulted to the extent of about rupees eight lakhs in payment of the tariff for the latter telephone and has objected to the appellant invoking Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules on the ground that the telephone which stands in the name of the firm belongs to a person different from the telephone which stood in the name of his wife and in which the default amounted to about rupees eight lakhs. Legal character acquired by a firm to sue and being sued in its name is nothing but a compendious name given to the representation of all the partners and the law, how, in such a situation, a partnership should b...
The Convenor, Eamcet-92, A.U. College of Engineering Vs. Jasmeet Singh ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-1995
Reported in: AIR1996AP1; 1995(3)ALT47
ORDERC.V.N. SASTRI, J.: 1. The Convener, EAMCET-92, Andhra University, Engineering College, Visakhapatnam, has filed this writ appeal questioning the order passed by the learned single Judge granting a direction that the petitioner-first respondent shall be admitted into the second year Engineering course in the subject as per his entitlement under the quota of seats reserved for the children of ex-servicemen with reference to his rank in EAMCET held in June/July, 1992 for which interviews were held in July, 1993. The facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal may be stated in brief:--The petitioner-first respondent appeared for EAMCET-92 and obtained 2859th rank in order of merit. He, however, claimed admission into one of the seats under the quota of 240 seats reserved for children of armed personnel and ex-servicemen. His ranking under this category was 53. In the interviews held in July, 1993, the authorities, however, considered that he is not eligible for a seat under the re...
M/S. V.K. Ferro Alloys Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the A.P. State Electri ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-1995
Reported in: AIR1996AP212
ORDERSyed Saadatulla Hussaini, J.1. This writ petition has been referred to the Division Bench by our learned brother P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. The reference order dated 28-2-1994 reads as follows :--'The question raised in this writ petition is whether the rebate of 25% in power tariff announced by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 654, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 13-7-1976 followed by the orders issued by the Electricity Board in B.P. Ms. No. 152 dated 13-2-1978 is applicable to the petitioner-industry, which had gone into commercial production on 16-9-1988. It is the stand of the Electricity Board that it had withdrawn the rebate to the category of industry which the petitioner had set up, by issuing B.P. Ms. No. 1098 dated 8-12-1987 and by virtue of the said B.P., it is contended that the benefit of the orders issued in B.P. Ms. No. 152 dated 13-2-1978 cannot be given effect to, inasmuch as the petitioner's industry had not gone into commercial production by that date of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »