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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandari Laxmaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR671(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. In this application, filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income- tax, Guntur, seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the lands in question are agricultural lands and capital gains tax is not attracted ?' 2. It is useful to notice the facts giving rise to the present application. The land of the respondent-assessee was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the L.A. Act'). The draft notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on September 1, 1977. However, it appears the possession of the land was taken on August 3, 1977, even before the draft notification was published in the Gazette. Notice under section 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on Ma...
State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Collector and anr. Vs. P. Peda Chinnay ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT498
K.M. Agarwal J.1. In all these various types of cases, such as Appeal Suits, Letters Patent Appeals and Writ Petitions etc., the nature of the dispute is common and is covered by the common question referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court in its order of reference, which is as follows:-'In all these cases the common question of law that arises for consideration is: Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation under Land Acquisition Act when the lands are resumed by the Govt., particularly when the lands resumed are assigned lands? In this regard there are conflicting views of Division Benches.'In W.P. Nos. 6032 and 6727 of 1988 a Division Bench of this Court consisting of V. Sivaraman Nair, J. and D. Reddeppa Reddi, J. held that the claimants are entitled to compensation only on compassionate grounds as per Govt. Orders but not under the Land Acquisition Act. In W.A. No. 631/93 another Division Bench consisting of the Hon. the Chief Justice and Syed Shah Mohd...
Pusapati Krishna Murthy Raju Vs. the A.P. State Electricity Board Rep. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT822
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The judgment and decree of the learned Additional Sub-Judge, Srikakulam passed in A.S.No. 9 of 1986 dated 8-2-1988 are in challenge in this appeal. Learned Additional Sub-judge allowed the appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned principal District Munsiff, Srikakulam dated 6-5-1985 dismissing the suit. The respondent - The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board-in this appeal is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 4,877-80 towards arrears for the period from 1976 to August, 1979 with interest and for costs of the suit. The plaintiff challenged the decision of the trial Court in the appeal which came to be allowed as above.2. The suit was based on an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant in regard to the supply of current or electrical energy to the pump set and it is dated 27-1-1970. The original stipulation in the agreement was for the load of 5 H.P., but later it was changed to 10 H.P., under the pro...
Sampat Patalia Vs. Ghulam FayazuddIn and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT635
ORDERA.S. Bhate, J. 1. This revision will have to be disposed of on the short ground that a revision does not lie under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short 'the Act'). This revision has been filed against an order directing restitution of possession to the tenant, who was earlier evicted under eviction orders passed under Section 10(2) of the Act. It need not be emphasised that a revision does not lie when an appeal lies against the said order. In the instant case the order passed was of restituting the property. On merits there was a dispute as to whether the property existed or did not exist when the order passed. We are not concerned with that at the present stage. The question only narrows down to the material question as to whether the said order was passed under execution of the orders of eviction. The order passed was not in execution of any order passed by the Rent Controller or any authority under the Act. It is true that the powe...
Andhra Pradesh Rayons Limited Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: AIR1997AP23; 1997(1)ALT69
ORDERM. N. Rao, J.1. In this writ appeal from the unsucessful petitioner in Writ Appeal No. 4034 of 1985 the questions for consideration concerns the applicability of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The appellant Andhra Pradesh Rayons Limited (for short 'the company) is a company, represented by its Secretary and the 3rd respondent herein is a shareholder of the company. The company was originally a public sector corporation owned by the State Government. It was engaged in the manufacture of synthetic rayon for which the raw material, hard wood, was supplied by the State Government from the reserve forests at specified rates. A loose expression 'royalty' was used in the correspondence for the sale consideration paid by the company. Subsequently the company was sold to private sector presumably due to the reason that it was incurring losses.2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant and the third respondent herein questioning the legality of the order passed by the State Govern...
Rashtreeya Ispat Nigam Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas645(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. This batch of Tax revision cases, filed under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'), arises under similar circumstances and raises the same question of law, therefore all the revisions are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. To appreciate the question of law arising in this batch of cases, we would refer to the facts in T.R.C. No. 256 of 1990. 3. The petitioner-company is the assessee and it is a Government of India undertaking engaged in manufacture of steel. The work relating to the construction of the administrative buildings and erection of plant in the petitioner-company was entrusted to the contractors. One of the conditions of the contract was that the assessee-company would supply cement, steel and A.C. Sheets from its stores basis. The turnover relating to the supply of the material, viz., steel, cement and A.C. sheets for the assessment year 1981-82 was not subjected to ...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. K. Hanumantha Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT749; (1996)IILLJ1085AP
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner assails the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad in I.A.No. 124 of 1995 in I.D. No. 13 of 1993 dated November 28, 1995, A further consequential direction is sought directing the respondent- Industrial Tribunal to decide the issue of jurisdiction as to whether the petitioner in I.D. No. 13 of 1993 is a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act'). In effect, the petitioner prays both for a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the 2nd Respondent-Industrial Tribunal in I.A. No. 124 of 1995 and for a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Tribunal to frame a preliminary point as to whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter.2. Facts may be briefly summarised. The 1st respondent employee, while working as Development Officer in the petitioner-Insurance Company was served with a c...
Apsrtc Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. Sanjay Kumar Bhawsingkha and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT293
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupati passed in O.P.No. 200 of 1989 dated 31-12-1990 holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver and Conductor of the ill-fated bus AEZ 3150 on 21-11-1988 at Tirupati bus stand at 11-15 PM and that the appellant-Corporation is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.3. A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:- On 21-11-1988 the deceased Kamala Kumar Bhawasingkha, aged about 45 years along with his family members and other relatives was travelling from Bangalore to Srikalahasti in the APSRTC bus bearing No. AEZ 3150. At about 11-15 PM on the same day the bus was stopped at RTC bus stand, Tirupati. Apart from the deceased and other family members, there were other passengers travelling by the same bus to Srikalahasti. After stopping the bus at ...
Eranki Venkata Ramanamma and ors. Vs. Eranki Atchuta Venkata Subramany ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT365
Y.V. Narayana, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 42 of 1974 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry preferred this appeal against the decree and judgment dated 15-7-1983 dismissing the suit. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: Originally Eranki Sreeramamurthy (the deceased first plaintiff) filed the suit against his second son the first defendant and his grand-sons defendants 2 to 5 with the following averments. The first plaintiff belongs to Jegurupadu village. The first plaintiff and his sons possessed of Acs. 100-00 of wet land and Acs. 50-00 of dry land. In order to discharge the joint family debts, some of the properties were sold. In 1953 the remaining properties were partitioned between the first plaintiff and his sons. Since then the first plaintiff and his sons were in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. Ever since the partition, the first defend ant is constantly requesting the first plaintiff to give a share to him in the per...
S. Nagulal Rao Vs. Medam Jayaramaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT995
C.V.N. Sastri, J.This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 25-2-1980 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit property, which comprises an extent of Ac. 0.22 cents of land at the rate of Rs. 2,100/- per cent. The agreement is purported to be executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 7, but it is actually signed by the first defendant only. The property is, admittedly, the joint family property of the defendants. Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 are the children of the 7th defendant. The father of defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and the husband of 7th defendant died intestate leaving behind him defendants Nos. 1 to 7 in the suit, besides another daughter by name Ramalingeswaramma and also his mother Saradamma, who were not impleaded as parties to the suit. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant is the Manager of the joint family of the defendants and that he executed the suit agreement for and o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »