Andhra Pradesh Court March 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 Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. (R and B) and anr. and the State o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT1137
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. C.M.A.No. 425/1993 filed Under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act and C.R.P.No. 1246/1993 arise out of a common judgment in O.P.No. 56/1991 and O.S.No. 82/1991 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram.2. O.P.NO. 56/1991 was filed by the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D.(R&B;), Eluru and another Under Sections 14(2) and 30 of the Arbitration Act raising objections to the award dated 33-7-1991 passed by the arbitrators and seeking relief to set aside that award. O.S.No. 82/1991 was filed by the respondent-contractor to direct the arbitrators to file the award into Court and to grant a decree in terms of the Award. The O.P. filed by the Government was dismissed and the suit filed by the Contractor was decreed. In other words, the award was upheld by the learned Subordinate Judge and it was made a rule of the Court. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the State has filed this appeal and the revision.3. Pursuant to a tender notification issued by the Superintending E...
Karanam Ramamurthy and ors. Vs. the Executive Officer, Panchayat Raj, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT924
ORDERV. Rajagopala Reddy, J.1. The petitioners, who are plaintiffs, laid the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from laying any road in the plaint schedule land. They made a notional value at Rs. 1,000/- for the relief claimed and a Court fee of Rs. 111/- was paid, under Section 26(c) of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'). For the purpose of jurisdiction the market value of the subject matter was shown as Rs. 67,000/- and therefore the suit came to be filed before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Rajam. 2. The inspecting staff of the District Court issued a check slip stating that the suit having been valued at Rs. 67,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction, since the pecuniary jurisdiction of Subordinate Judge's Court commences from Rs.50,000/- the Court fee should be paid on Rs. 67,000/-. The petitioners filed objections maintaining that the Court fee paid by them was proper as it is in accordence with the provisions of the Act. The...
Yerramilli Satyanarayana and anr. Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by the Distri ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT194
ORDERV. Rajagopala Reddy, J.1. The petitioners, who are plaintiffs, laid the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from laying any road in the plaint scheduled land, They made a notional value at Rs. 1,000/-, for the relief claimed and a court fee of Rs. 111/- was paid, Under Section 26(c) of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, (for short the Act'). For the purpose of jurisdiction the market value of the subject matter was shown as Rs. 75,000/-and therefore the suit came to be filed before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Rajam.2. The inspecting staff of the District Court issued a check slip stating that the suit having been valued at Rs. 75,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction, since the pecuniary jurisdiction of Subordinate Judge's Court commences from Rs. 50,000/-, the court fee should be paid on Rs. 75,000/-. The petitioners filed objections maintaining that the court fee paid by them was proper as it is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Th...
T. Gurava Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Endowments and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT918
ORDERV. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has been working as Attender in Sri Kalahasteeswaraswamy Devasthanam, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He attained the age of 60 years in the month of June, 1995. The second respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 6-4-1995 intimating to the petitioner that he was due to attain the age of superannuation by the end of June, 1995 and hence to retire accordingly. The petitioner challenged the above proceedings on the ground that he is entitled to be continued upto the age of 65 years as per the rules framed under Section 100 of Act 19 of 1951.2. It is asserted by the petitioner in paragraph 6 of the affidavit that under Rule 2 of the rules framed under Section 100 of the said Act, 'no person may be appointed to hold any office unless he is not less than 25 and not more than 65 years of age'. He has cited certain instances wherein this Court granted interim suspension of similar proceedings in respect of some other empl...
Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy and Etc. Etc. Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1996
Reported in: AIR1996AP403; 1996(1)ALT760
ORDERP. S. Mishra, C.J.1. These writ petitions are off-shoots of the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Y. S. Vivekananda Reddy, : AIR1995AP1 .2. Undisputed facts are as follows: The Government of Andhra Pradesh by G.O.Ms. No. 27, Industries and Commerce (Mines. III) Department, dated 7-1-1974 declared that the Barytes Ore bearing areas in the villages of Mangampet and Anantaraju-pet of Cuddapah District other than those already leased out were reserved for exploitation in the public sector with immediate effect and granted in favour of Andhra Pradesh Mining Corporation, a public sector undertaking, the lease in respect of 22.799 hectares of land for extraction of Barytes Ore for a period of 20 years. This was followed by a tripartite agreement dated 25-5-1975 between the State Government, the Corporation and the Pattedars of the lands (writ petitioners), in whom the surface rights were vested and pursuant to the agreement the Corporation' execute...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Andhra Sugars Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(AP)453; [1997]225ITR118(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri J.1. This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue. The following question was referred to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in upholding the deduction allowed in respect of entertainment expenditure to the extent of Rs. 29,040 ?' 2. After hearing the arguments of both sides, we are of the view, the question needs to be recast and we reframe the same as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in upholding the deduction allowed in respect of expenditure to the extent of Rs. 29,040 ?' 3. It may be necessary to note the facts giving rise to this question. The respondent-assessee is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act. In the assessment year 1976-77, it incurred an expenditure of Rs. 30,040 for provid...
Syed RiazuddIn HussaIn Vs. K. Ramulu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT590; (1997)IILLJ590AP
Lingaraja Rath, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment passed in Writ Petition No.25825 of 1995 and hence are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants in Writ Appeal No. 104 of 1996, for the purpose of this ju4Igment, are referred to as the appellants and the appellant in 1 Writ Appeal No. 34 of 1996, wherever necessary, would be specifically referred to. 3. The brief facts relating to the case are that the Respondent No. 1 in both the writ appeals 1 was deputed to the District Backward Classes Service Co-operative Society Limited, Warangal (Respondent No.2 of the writ petition and Appellant No.2 before us) by the Commissioner of Industries on October 31, 1994. He 2 was posted by the Ist appellant-Corporation in the 2nd appellant-Society as the Executive Officer which post was subsequently redesignated as the Executive Director. ' The Ist appellant repatriated Respondent No. 1 to his parent department by order passed on November 10, 1995 which is challen...
A. Dayashankar and ors. Vs. Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd., Rep. by Its Mana ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT311
ORDERP.S. Mishra, C.J.1. Facts are not in dispute and as stated in the oral order of the learned single Judge, they are as follows:'The brief facts leading to this writ petition may be summarised thus: These five petitioners were appointed under Respondent No. 4 at Nagarjunasagar Dam as Mazdoors and thereafter they were promoted from time to time, and at the particular time, they were working as Turners' with Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 2 - General Manager, Nizam Sugar Factory, working for Respondent No. 4, is the Unit of Respondent No. 1 i.e., Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. Since there was some. project work with Respondent No. 2, these five petitioners were sent on deputation for completing that project work; the project work was completed during the year 1976-77. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 decided to retrench the services of the petitioners along with other persons. There was a correspondence between Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 1 in regard to surplus persons. It was decided...
Durgaram Prasad, Engineers and Contractors Vs. the Govt. of Andhra Pra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT199
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. In these appeals filed Under Section 38 of the Arbitration Act, the appellant-contractor is questioning the Judgment of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court in O.S. Nos. 133 and 140 of 1979. O.S. No. 133/1979 was filed by the appellant-firm Under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act to make the award dated 31-3-1979 passed by the arbitrator a rule of the Court and to pass a decree in terms thereof. O.S.No. 140/1979 was filed by the Government of A.P., the respondent herein, objecting to the award passed by the arbitrator Under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act and seeking the relief to set aside the Award. The 2nd defendant in the suit is a retired Chief Engineer appointed by the Court on a Section 20 petition to act as an arbitrator in order to decide the disputes between the parties arising out of a contract for construction of Arts & Science College building at Siddipet, Medak District.2. The Tender of the appellant was accepted in May...
K. Balaraj Vs. B. Mallaiah @ Mallesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT170
ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J.1. This is an application filed by the respondent seeking time for deposit of the balance of the sale consideration pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 8-4-1994 in S.A. No. 507/90.2. The facts in brief are: A suit was filed for the specific performance of an agreement which was decreed. The defendant went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge in A.S.No. 25/87. He filed a further appeal i.e. Second Appeal No. 507/90. The second appeal was also dismissed.3. The trial Court while decreeing the suit for special performance granted 3 months time form the date of judgment for depositing the balance of sale consideration. The second appeal was dismissed by this Court on 8-4-1994. The original suit was decreed on 6-7-1987. However, while dismissing the second appeal, no time limit was fixed for depositing the balance of sale consideration. The present application is filed stating that by oversight, no request was made for granting time to deposit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›