Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
Virat Crane Industries Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas587(AP)
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The petitioner, challenging the validity of the Government Memo No. 37289/CT-1/95-4, dated January 23, 1996 and also the consequential notice issued by the first respondent-Commercial Tax Officer, Patnam Bazar, Guntur, in G.I. No. 1486/94-95, dated February 8, 1996, prays for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the said memo and notice and to quash the same. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing 'gutka and fruit masala'. The petitioner (for short, 'the company') is the registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'). For the assessment year 1993-94, the assessment proceedings were completed by exempting a turnover of Rs. 14,67,383 relating to the sale of 'gutka', which was exempted from the sales tax. It appears that in exercise of the power under section 42A of the Act, the Commiss...
Gottipati Narasimhulu Naidu Vs. Devineni Gangi Naidu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: 2000(2)ALT591
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati in A.S. No. 34 of 1980, dated 10-2-1987 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirupati in O.S. No. 693 of 1978, dated 31-1-1980 are in challenge in this appeal. The appellant herein is the plaintiff. The respondents herein were the defendants. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are dead and their legal representatives were brought on record.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit property is an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 19/3 with an extent of 1 acre 48 cents situated at Pulicheralpalem village in Chittoor District. The defendants are close relatives. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 are the brothers and Defendants No. 8 ...
Bandi Subhash Reddy and ors. Vs. K. Satyanarayana Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT691
S.V. Maruthi, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a judgment dated 1-8-1983 in O.S. No. 208 of 1983 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rangareddy District. In A.S. No. 273 of 1984, defendant Nos.1,2 and 7 are the appellants and in A.S. No. 2235 of 1984, the plaintiffs are the appellants.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession and partition of plaint A-1 and A-2 and plaint B and C schedule properties. Plaint A-1 schedule property consists of Acs.72-00 of land and plaint A-2 and B schedule properties consist of Acs.22-00 of land.3. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:One Nawaz Reddy was the original owner of the plaint schedule properties. He died in 1947. Defendant No. 3 is the first wife and widow of late Nawaz Reddy. Defendant No. 2 is the daughter of Nawaz Reddy by his fourth wife Manikyamma. The said Manikyamma died long ago. Defendant No. 1 is the husband of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 7 is the father-in-law of defendant No. 2 a...
Sreedhar Finance, Rep. by Its Managing Partner, Ch. Brahma Rao Vs. Jur ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT979
ORDERS. Dasaratharama Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit which was filed for recovery of the money due to the plaintiff's firm. After the arguments were heard and judgment was reserved in the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 2079/95, out of which the present Civil Revision Petition arises, for reopening the matter and recalling the plain tiff for the purpose of filing the partnership deed. The Court below dismissed this petition following the decision in 'T. Ramachandra v. K. Rama Murthy and Ors., AIR 1980 A.P. 265'.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petition has to be considered as filed under Order 18 Rule 17-A and not under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that in the decision of this Court in 'T. Ramachandra v. K. Rama Murthy and Ors., AIR 1980 A.P. 265' Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was interpreted and Order 18, Rule 17-A was not brought to the notice of the Court. The learned counsel for the pe...
i.B. Rajendra Prasad Vs. the Director of Tribal Welfare and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT862
Lingaraja Rath, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment in Writ Petition Nos. 12403 of 1987 and 5614 of 1988 dated 31st July, 1990 which relate to the same set of facts and hence are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The question that falls for consideration in these appeals is whether a person who has been appointed to a job in a public sector undertaking on the basis of the being a scheduled tribe if is lateron found as not having that status because of subsequent decision of the High Court clarifying that die sect to which he belongs is not a scheduled tribe, his caste certificate can be cancelled, without notice to him, and his appointment which he has held for about 10 years can be terminated, though the appellant did not at any time made any misrepresentation of his status. A few facts necessary to consider the question raised are: on 22-11-1976 a certificate was issued by the Head Mistress of S.R.R. Prasad Multipurpose School, Nuzvid, describing the appellan...
Suryalatha Spinning Mills Ltd. and anr. and Suryavanshi Finance and In ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR713(AP); [1997]93TAXMAN310(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri J.1. In these four writ petitions, the constitutional validity of section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is questioned. As the question raised in these writ petitions is common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. For appreciating the contentions raised in these writ petitions, we would refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 8060 of 1992. 2. The first petitioner in this writ petition is a public limited company which is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The second petitioner is one of the equity shareholders of the first petitioner-company. It is stated that under the provisions of the Companies Act, the petitioner is required to prepare the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account in accordance with Schedule VI to the said Act. For the financial year 1989-90, i.e., April 1, 1989, to March 31, 1990, the petitioner disclosed Rs. 65,52,925 as the net profit. The petitioner filed income-tax returns for the sai...
The Chittoor District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd., Milk Products ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT526
P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.2. It is not in dispute that a piece of land was assigned to one Muni Reddy on 12-6-1959 under S.O.No. 15 of the Board of Revenue Standing Orders and a patta in Form - D for the said purpose was issued. The appellant herein, which is a Co-operative Milk Producers Union, approached the State Government for certain extent of land for the purpose of expanding its activities, to be specific - to establish an additional milk processing plant (Dairy) at Tirupathi. The Government for the said purpose decided to resume lands assigned to several persons including Muni Reddy. The respondent - writ petitioner, Smt. C. Rajamma, however, objected to the resumption of land and claimed that she was the daughter-in-law of the assignee, she had perfected her title by prescription and also by continuous possession and that in any case she was entitled to compensation. The Mandal Revenue Officer as well as...
Smt. Shakuntala Bai Vs. Maniamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT923
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. These two C.R.Ps. are preferred against the orders passed in I.A. Nos.10 and 17 of 1996 in R.A. No.372/1994 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court. I.A.No.10/1996 was filed against the order enlarging the time by three days for paying the arrears of rent by the tenant. I.A.No.17/1996 was filed to set aside the ex parte order passed in I.A.No.10/1996.2. The Rent Control appellate authority granted 15 days' time for the deposit of arrears of rent, by his order in I. A.No.1930/94 dt 27-12-94.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out two infirmities in the order. Firstly, the application for extension of time was not served on the petitioner's counsel. Secondly, the affidavit filed by the advocate in support of LA. does not disclose sufficient reasons and on the basis of such affidavit, the learned appellate Judge should not have extended the time, that too, without assigning any reasons. I agree with the learned couns...
Smt. K.N.V.M. Tayaru Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rep. by I ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT393
ORDERB.S. Raikote, J.1. The petitioner has questioned the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 28-3-1994 passed on its file No. A.P. 973/93. By this order, the said Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, confirming the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, dated 24-5-1993. Both the authorities dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for grant of one pucca stage Carriage permit regarding the route applied for by the petitioner, on the ground that a distance of 1.6 K.Ms. overlaps on the notified route approved in G.O.Ms.No. 782.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed both the judgments by raising the following points:(1) That the alleged overlapping to the extent of 1.6 K.Ms. is only an inter - section and the same is permissible.(2) That on the same route, a permit is granted to another person on 29-11-1989. However, the said permit was challenged in Revision Petition No. R.P.No. 18/92. By dismissing t...
B.N. Gunta Vs. Puli Gopal Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT927
ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J.1. The question involved in this revision is whether the Exs. B-13, B-15 and B-16 dated 8-10-1957, 17-1-1959 and 18-1-1959 for Rs. 695-80 Rs. 2,920/- and Rs. 3,000/- bearing anna stamp 2, anna stamps 4 and anna stamps 4 of Government of Hyderabad respectively are admissible in evidence.2. The learned Judge held that these documents are not admissible in evidence as they are not duly stamped. In support of his finding, the learned Judge held that under Article 49(a)(iii) of the Schedule I of the Stamp Act, the duty payable on pronotes above Rs. 1000/- was 25 paise and since the duty paid on Exs. B-15 and B-16 was 4 annas and the duty paid on Ex.B-13 was 1 anna (sic. 2 annas), they were insufficiently stamped against which the present revision is filed.3. Under similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in CRP No. 613/64, dated 8-11-1968 held that the pronotes which were executed after the amendment of Indian Stamp Act by Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act 19 of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »