Andhra Pradesh Court October 1996 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.
The Assistant Director D and E Vs. Nathmal Bajaj
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT(Cri)629; 1997CriLJ930
ORDER1. The petitioner is working as a Senior Commercial Manager of 'M/s. Deccan Tobacco Processors Private Limited' and he is also a Director of another firm named 'M/s. Deep Kamal Sentix Limited'. It is the contention of petitioner that he is a nominal Director of the second firm. Both the firms are based at Hyderabad. The Company Director Mr. Piyush looks after the day to day affairs of the second firm. It is then submitted that petitioner is originally resident of Bombay and because of his bad health he had gone to Bombay in second week of February of this year. He was allegedly on leave in those days. When he was about to return back to Hyderabad, some time in August or beginning of September, 1996 he read a news item in some newspaper stating that the Managing Director of one Golden Tobacco Company named Sri J. P. Khaitan was arrested. He therefore, rushed back to Hyderabad and noticed outside his residential premises a summons having been affixed some time in February, 1996 for ...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. N. Balakrishna
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(AP)273; [1997]223ITR751(AP)
T.N.C. Rangarajan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred under s. 27(1) of the WT Act : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the provisions of s. 4(1)(b) of the WT Act r/w r. 2 of the WT Rules and the principle decided by the AP High Court in CWT vs . Narendra Ranjalker : [1981]129ITR203(AP) are not applicable in the case of the assessee, who is a minor (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in directing the WTO to grant exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) separately for a minor ?' 2. The undisputed facts are that the assessee was a minor admitted to the benefits of a partnership and that partnership had a residential property. For the valuation dates being 31st December, 1975 and 31st December, 1976 respectively corresponding to the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78, the 1/8th share of the assessee in the net wealth of the firm was added ...
Mogili Venkateswarlu Vs. Miriyala Balaramaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: II(1997)ACC224; 1997(1)ALT63
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The appellant/claimant lost his right leg below knee level due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident at Hyderabad on 31-10-1987. The accident was said to be caused due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AAT 5576 belonging to respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2. Therefore, he laid claim before the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur in O.P. No. 440 of 1987 Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. That claim having been resisted by respondent No. 2, the insurer and having enquired into the claim, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle and that the respondents were liable to pay compensation and that Rs. 30,000/- should be the just sum of compensation. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the amount so awarded is inadequate and requires to be enhanced. There is no representation for the respondent.2. Both from the testimon...
Mohd. FaizuddIn Vs. Ahmed BIn HussaIn and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT298
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is against the order directing the Station House Officer, Shamsheer Gunj Police Station to ensure that both the parties maintain status-quo in respect of plots 2 and 3 in H.No. 19-3-528, Payen Bagh, Jahanuma, Hyderabad pending orders in LA. No. 172 of 1996. Status-quo order was granted in the injunction petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. While so, the respondents-defendants filed LA. No. 219 of 1996 seeking a direction to the police to extend help in maintaining status-quo. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A., it is stated in somewhat vague terms that the other party is indulging in acts of 'attempted incursions at odd hours of day in and day out'. It is not in dispute that the land in question is an open land. The lower Court, without specifying how and in what manner the police has to ensure the maintenance of status-quo, granted a direction for extending the police aid. The Station House Officer is not expec...
D. Peri Reddy and ors. Vs. Govt. of A.P., Finance and Planning Departm ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT721
ORDERS. Parvatha Rao, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the stoppage of payment of unhealthy locality allowance (Bad Climate Allowance), Special Compensatory Allowance, Rent-free quarters or Additional House Rent Allowance in lieu of rent free quarters from 1-3-1996. Therefore, they seek a Writ of Mandamus directing the payment of the said allowances with effect from 1-3-1996 after declaring that the stoppage of the said payments is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. We do not see how that can be done unless the petitioners establish that they have a right to the said allowances. It is not the case of the petitioners that some Government servants in the State are being paid the said allowances and that they are being denied in spite of their being placed in a similar position as the others receiving the said benefit. The learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents are agreed that no State Government servant is bei...
Pallavi Traders Vs. Petro Lubes and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALD(Cri)35; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)18; 1997CriLJ1348
ORDERT. Ranga Rao, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. requesting to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 451/1995 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.2. The facts in giving rise to the filing of this petition are, briefly, as follows:-The first respondent, M/s. Petro Lubes filed a private complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the company was doing business in oil and the petitioner purchased oil worth Rs. 14,000/- on credit on 19-12-1994, and issued a cheque for Rs. 14,000/- dated 11-2-1995 drawn on A.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lothugunta Branch, Secunderabad. It is further alleged that the petitioner addressed a letter dated 23-2-1995 requesting not to present the cheque and assured to pay the said amount on or before 10-4-1995 and failed to pay the same within the said period. The cheque was subsequently presented at State Bank of Hyderabad, Adarshnagar Branch and...
Tej Prakash S. Dangi and ors. Vs. Coramandal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas516(AP)
Lingaraja Rath, J. 1. The appellants, having failed to persuade the learnedCompany Judge to hold the application filed by them to obtain a declaration that forfeitureof their shares in respondent No. 1 company is illegal, as maintainable, havepreferred this appeal. The appellants had obtained shares in respondent No. 1 company,but since they failed to pay the call money in respect of the balance due on theshares, the shares were forfeited. The appellants filed the company petition beforethe learned Company Judge seeking redressal raising the question that since theyhad been allotted the shares which were endorsed as 'fully paid-up', these could notbe forfeited even though money was due to be paid to the company in respect of theshares. The learned Judge held that the application was not maintainable since therewas no statutory provision under which an action in respect of forfeiture of shareslay before the court. Admittedly, the provision regarding forfeiture of shares is provided only...
Sarvaraya Textiles Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Kakinada
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: [1998]109STC232(AP)
ORDERM.N. Rao, J.1. The appeals preferred by the petitioner-assessee were allowed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 717 and 718 of 1993 on January 30, 1995 in respect of the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The petitioner-assessee is, therefore, entitled for interest under section 33-F of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act with effect from July 29, 1995 at the rate of 12 per cent simple interest on the amount he is entitled to refund pursuant to the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the aforesaid appeals. It is brought to our notice that against the common order made by the Appellate Tribunal in the above appeals on January 30, 1995, an application seeking condonation of delay for the purpose of filing a tax revision case was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on August 7, 1996 in C.M.P. No. 3272 of 1996 in T.R.C. S.R. No. 2104 of 1996. It is, therefore, clear that in respect of the other appeal, no T.R.C. can be filed even with an applicat...
M.D., A.P. State Construction Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ858AP
ORDERA. Hanumahthu, J. 1. As the point involved in all these writ petitions is common, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the common order dated May 28, 1987 passed in M.P.No. 825/1985 and batch on the file of the Labour Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner in all the writ petitions is the Managing Director of A.P. State Construction Corporation Ltd.. Hyderabad (hereinafter called as the 'Corporation) and the 2nd Respondents in all these petitions are the monthly rated workers working in the work charged establishment ofthe said Corporation and thelst Respondent is the Labour Court, Hyderabad whose order is impugned in writ petitions.3. The respondents-workmen have been working under the Corporation. By its Circular (Ex.M1), dated April 30, 1979, the Corporation introduced the pay scales applicable to the work-charged establishment of Irrigation and Power Department of the State Government f...
Kushal Rao Vs. Shyam Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT93
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. Heard on merits. Formally admitting the revision petition.2. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bodhan, in I.A.No. 62/1994 in O.S.No. 6/1986 dated 13-8-1996 is questioned by the 1st defendant in the suit. The matter arose with this fact matrix:A preliminary decree was passed in O.S.No. 6/1986 between the parties. Sri K. Dattatreya Rao, Advocate, was appointed as Commissioner by the Court to assess the mesne profits in regard to the suit lands from the year 1984. The Commissioner warrant was entrusted to him in February, 1995. The report was submitted by the Commissioner in February, 1996 reporting that he could not assess the mesne profits from the year 1984 to 1993 as he could not get proper information. However, he was able to assess the mesne profits for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 only regarding Khariff season. The Commissioner also made certain observations in the report in regard to the existence or otherwise of certain crops like Mango crop...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »