Andhra Pradesh Court October 1996 Judgments

Neerukonda Venkata Ratnam and ors. Vs. Neerukonda Lakshmi and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1996(4)ALT884

ORDERK.B. Siddappa, J.1. This Revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 21-7-1995 passed in C.M.A. 10/95 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kowur, West Godavari district2. The plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. They filed the suit for permanent injunction with regard to pathway marked as 'ABCD' in the plaint schedule. They also claimed right of taking water along 'bodi' BBI, LLI and KKI, pending disposal of the main suit. The trial Court after considering the material available on record found prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs and the respondents/defendants were restrained from interfering with the right of the petitioners/ plaintiffs for using 10 'width of land as passage in 'ABCD' portion on the eastern side of the respondents' land. The respondents were also further restrained from interfering with the right of taking water from (sic.for) petitioners 'land along BBI, LLI and KKI 'bodi' from the bore well on payment of electr...

Dhanalaxmi Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1997]228ITR780(AP)

P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. The petitioner herein is an assessee who has moved this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'B' Bench, Hyderabad, and sought a direction for a reference on the following questions : '(I) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sale of scrap to Balaji Steel Traders by the appellant having been accepted by the Department, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that sum of Rs. 14,12,081 advanced against the said sale could be treated as undisclosed income of the applicant (II) Whether, in a transaction of sale of stock-in-trade the Tribunal is right in placing the onus on the assessee to prove the source of monies paid to the assessee by the purchaser of goods (III) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer not having made the addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal could have considere...

Sri Shiva Shakthi Constructions (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Superintendi ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(1)ALT247

ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J.1. Since the common question of law are involved in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by a common order.2. The first respondent-Superintending Engineer, Roads and Buildings, National Highway Circle, Hyderabad issued Tender Notifications (1) CTN.2/ 96-97, dt. 10-4-1996, (2) CTN.4/96-97, dt. 25-5-1996, (3) CTN. 7/96-97 dt. 17-6-1996. The tender condition No. 2 in CTN 4 and 7 are assailed in Writ Petition Nos. 16642/96 and 14499/96 while tender condition No. 7 (ii) is challenged in Writ Petition No. 10360/96. In W.R. No. 16889/96 the first respondent refused to supply the tender schedule on the ground that it is not a recognised joint venture.3. The facts in nut-shell are that the Ist respondent issued tender notifications in respect of certain works on the national highways. Special conditions were imposed for issuing the tender schedules. Special condition No. 2 is extracted below.'Proof of ownership of machinery required for road work such as earth work ...

Syed Ali Vs. Syed Abdul Rahman and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(1)ALT389

ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The correctness and legality of the order of the learned District Munsif, Armoor in O.S.No. 97/89 on I.A.No. 324/95 dated 22-7-1996 is challenged. The petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed an application Under Section 151 of C.P.C. to reject the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 2 by his advocate after the death of the party. Notice of the petition has been served on the contesting respondents and there is not representation. Having due regard to the simple questions involved in this petition, the main matter has been heard at the stage of admission for disposal according to law. The uncontroverted facts leading to this revision petition are that defendant No. 2, viz., Syed Mohammed died on 16-3-1990 during pendency of the suit and his written statement was filed into Court on 20-3-1990 by his advocate. It appears that he had sworn to the affidavit and verified the written statement on 12-3-1990. Therefore the contention that by the time the...

A. Raja Reddy Vs. the Collector and District Magistrate and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1996(2)ALD(Cri)947; 1996(4)ALT305

R. Bayapu Reddy, J.1. This writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner who is the father of the detenu by name A, Mallareddy R/o. Madapur, Nirmal Mandal in Adilabad District, for quashing the detention orders passed under the provisions of Section 3(2) r/w. Section 3(1) of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot- Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Gocndas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986) (for short 'the Act')-2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Adilabad passed the impugned detention orders in Rc.No. D3/1438/96, dated 5-8-1996 under Section 3(2) r/w. Section 3( 1) of the Act, directing the detention of the detenu for a period of one year on the ground that he has been acting prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by 'committing offences under Sections 2(a) and 2(g) of the Act'. The order of detention was approved by the State Government on 16-8-1996 and the detenu was arrested on 31-8-1996 and confined in the Central Prison...

K.V. Sreenivasa Rao Vs. the Special Court Under A.P. Land Grabbing (Pr ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1996(2)ALD(Cri)893; 1996(4)ALT844

ORDER1. The learned Counsel on either side have appeared. With the consent of the parties, the case is heard and disposed of.2. Respondent No.l before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act is the petitioner before us assailing the judgment delivered by that forum in L.G.C. No. 164 of 1994. Respondent No. 2 filed the case before the Land Grabbing Court seeking relief against the petitioner as also Respondent No. 3 for acts of land grabbing alleged to have been made by them. Her case before the Court was that she was purchaser of Plot No. 60 in Survey Nos. 41/1 and 474 of Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. District on 11-5-1992 and that the petitioner, who had earlier purchased the adjacent Plot No. 59 to the west of Plot No. 60, had encroached 55 sq. yards from that plot and that likewise Respondent No. 3, who was the purchaser of Plot No. 58 to the west of Plot No. 59 had encroached 45 sq. yards in Plot No. 59. The petitioner contested the case saying that he had purchased ...

A. Padmavathi and Others Vs. Manager, Vijaya Bank and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complaint CD 109/91, State Commission/ Hyderabad is filed by 8 individuals who were all teachers working in Devid Memorial High School at the time of occurrence of the event, against (1) The Manager, Vijaya Bank, Hyderabad, (2) Conwest Estates and Builders, Narayanguda, Hyderabad and (3) Sri Rajendrapal Reddy, Public Relations Officer, NCC Directorate, Secunderabad to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally (a) to waive the loan with interest upto date, (2) to direct the Conwest Estates and Builders and its agent Sri K. Rajendrapal Reddy to pay the loan amounts, (3) to pay to the complainants the difference in the prices of house plots during the past three years, and (4) to direct the opposite party No. 1 Bank to supply copies of sets of loan agreements together with enclosures like the pronote, receipts and letter of authorization to transfer the amounts to the builder with his name printed in them and to direct the Banki.e. first opp...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J. Narayana Murthy

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1997]228ITR99(AP)

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri J.1. In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions are referred to this court for opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the official receiver is not a representative assessee under the provisions of section 160(1)(iii) in respect of the capital gains derived on the sale of the property of the insolvent 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that sale of the insolvent's property effected by the official receiver results in no capital gain assessable to tax 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that there is no cost in respect of property sold by the official receiver 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ca...

Mir Barkat Ali Khan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (1997)143CTR(AP)101; [1997]226ITR654(AP); [1997]94TAXMAN84(AP)

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. In the reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'), four questions were referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') to this court. While answering two questions, the Division Bench of this court, of which one of us (Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri J.) was a member, referred the following two questions to a Full Bench : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was the owner in respect of properties agreed to be sold and in respect of which sale consideration was received but no sale deeds had been executed or registered (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was the owner of the properties in possession of the Sahebzadas and Sahebzadis regarding which the assessee granted firmans ?' Accordingly, this reference has come up before us. 2. The facts leading to the reference of these questions may be noted here : The late Nizam...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M.A.R. Rajkumar

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1997]226ITR804(AP)

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. This reference, at the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, came up before a Division Bench of this court for its opinion. On consensus, a composite question was framed by the court required for its opinion and the said question reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the : circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in subjecting the Hindu undivided family of M.A. Rajkumar to assessment as a non-specified Hindu undivided family at the rates specified in clause (i) Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the purpose of wealth-tax assessments for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 on the basis of the declaration dated April 5, 1971, made by Smt. Naga Satyavathi relinquishing her status and rights in the property as a member of the Hindu undivided family ?' However, the Division Bench felt that there is no direct decision of any High Court or the Supreme Court on the point. After referring...