Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
T. Anjaneyulu and Another Vs. D.T. Naik and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1997AP237; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)589; 1996(2)ALT(Cri)782
ORDERP. S. Mishra, C. J.1. The issue involved in these petitions concern the state pf policing by resorting to certain methods which are allegedly abuse of the police power, by the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada city and the District Superintendent of Police, Medak district at Sangareddy. Proceedings have started on the basis of the representations which have been treated as Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Respondents have since entered appearance, filed counter affidavits, produced relevant materials and learned Advocate General has been heard in detail, besides learned counsel for the petitioners.3. One of the issues which has received serious attention of all concerned, is the attempt of the police officers to evolve some indigenous mechanism for some sort of enquiry and settlement of disputes between the complainant on the one hand and the respondent (accused) on the other hand in so-called petitions made directly to the Commissioner of Police, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Andhra Cotton Mills Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(AP)398; [1997]228ITR30(AP)
S. Parvatha Rao, J.This is a reference made at the instance of the Revenue under sub-section (1) of section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The question referred for our opinion arises out of a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 21 and 22 (Hyd.) of 1984 dated October 5, 1984, relating to the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 and is as follows : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in upholding the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing withdrawal of the deduction by way of depreciation allowed by the Income-tax Officer ?' As there was no representation on behalf of the respondent-assessee, we requested Mr. A.V. Krishna Kaundinya to act as amicus curiae. This is an odd case where the assessee questions the deductions in respect of depreciation allowed by the Income-tax Officer under section 32 of the Act for the two assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Apex Agencies
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: [1997]104STC44(AP)
Syed Sham Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The short question that falls for consideration in this tax revision case, filed by the State under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales tax Act, 1957 is whether electronic calculators are assessable to tax under entry No. 12 or entry No. 38(v) of the First Schedule to the A.P. General Sales Tax Act. 2. The assessing authority assessed to tax under entry No. 12. On appeal, the Appellate Deputy commissioner confirmed the order of the assessing authority taking the view that the electronic calculators fall under entry No. 12 of the First Schedule. The assessee went in appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that the electronic calculators fall under entry 38(v) and accordingly allowed the appeal on December 1, 1988. Hence this revision. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader contends that as calculating machines are specifically dealt with under entry No. 12, therefore the Tribunal was in error in treating it...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Venkateswara Bar and Restaurant
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: [1997]104STC360(AP)
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. The question that is canvassed in these tax revision cases, filed by the State, is whether purchase tax is leviable under section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (for short, 'the Act') on the purchase of dressed chicken. 2. The respondents are dealers dealing in dressed chicken. The assessing authority assessed the turnover of dressed chicken to tax under section 6-A of the Act on the ground that the dealers have purchased dressed chicken from unregistered dealers. On appeal by the dealers, the appellate authority took the view that exemption granted under G.O. Ms. No. 60 dated January 20, 1989 did not cover the purchase tax under section 6-A of the Act and in that view of the matter, confirmed the order of assessment. The dealers went in second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that the exemption granted under G.O. Ms. No. 60 covers purchase tax under section 6-A of the Act and allowed the a...
Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department and anr. Vs. Progressiv ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT701
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. This C.M.A. and C.R.P. arise out of a common judgment delivered by the second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The C.M.A. is filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act against the order in O.P.No. 4 of 1986. The said O.P. was filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle-III, Nizamabad under Sections and 33 of the Arbitration Act objecting to the Award passed and praying the Court to set aside the award dated 27-9-1985.2. The C.R.P. arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 1242 of 1985. The suit was filed by the respondent herein under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act praying the Court to direct the Arbitrators (defendants 3 to 5) to file their award into Court and to make the award the rule of the Court and also to award interest at 18% per annum from the date of the decree.3. The O.P. was dismissed by the learned second Additional Judge, City Civil Court and the suit was dec...
P.L. Raju and Company Vs. State of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT589
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. Seeking review of the judgment in C.M.A. No. 1301/1989 and C.R.P. No. 3611 /19.88, dated 21-7-1995, these review petitions are filed. It is contended by the review petitioner that the refusal to grant interest pendente lite is not in accordance with the binding pronouncements of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the judgment suffers from an error apparent on its face. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the review petitioner that there is also 'sufficient reason' within the meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. for reviewing the judgment, as otherwise, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. A factual error that has occurred in paragraph 35 on account of the representation made by the Counsel himself has also been pointed out:At paragraph 35, we held as follows:'Thus, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Durga Ram Prasad (25 supra) and of this Bench in C.M.A. No .1 156/1989 : 1995(3)ALT537 , we negative the claim for interest for the period bet...
Tensil Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the A.P. State Financial Cor ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT162
ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J.1. These two writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment as the issues involved are common in both the writ petitions. The first petitioner is Tensil Glass Works Fvt. Ltd. and the second petitioner is A.G. Natarajan in Writ Petition No. 2837/95 (sic. /93).2. Mr. A.G. Natarajan was a technical Engineer in Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. In the year 1984, he resigned his job and joined as working partner in the first petitioner company which is manufacturing Glassware at Bangalore. Natarajan is a resident of Bangalore. The first respondent offered Shed Nos. 6 and 7 (3600 Sq.ft) which was originally purchased by M/s. Electronics Ltd., from the first respondent and who became a defaulter in repayment of loan at Rs. 4.65 lakhs out of which the petitioner paid Rs. 1.02 lakhs towards 25% of the value of the Industrial sheds and also towards old machinery. The petitioner purchased the unit for purpose of setting up of an industry for manufacture of Scientific Glas...
Nikesh Vs. Smt. Malathi Bai and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT483
ORDERK.B. Siddappa, J.1. This revision is filed against the order passed in LA. No. 1084 of 1988 in LA. No. 484 of 1988 in O.S. No. 2789 of 1988 on the file of the Sixth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs. They obtained ex parte injunction against the petitioner herein. The case of the petitioner is that after obtaining the ex parte injunction they have not complied with the mandatory provisions of the Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. Therefore the injunction granted should be vacated. This plea was negatived by the lower Court.2. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision is filed.3. When the expatte injunction is granted, the condition laid down in proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 C .P.C. has to be strictly complied with. The parry obtaining the injunction is required to deliver to the opposite party or to send to him by Registered post, immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injun...
Smt. G. Raja Kumari, Secretary and Correspondent, Silver Bells Educati ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALD(Cri)428; 1996(4)ALT678
ORDERS. Parvatha Rao, J.1. This case highlights the travails of the defendants/respondents when the Courts grant ex parte ad interim injunctions at the asking of the plaintiffs/ petitioners and then take their own time and do not dispose of the interlocutory applications for injunctions after counter-affidavits are filed by the affected parties and in spite of the valiant efforts of the affected parties for early disposal: this, in the teeth of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure/1908 ('the Code' for short) especially Rules 3-A and 4 of Order 39, and several decisions of the Apex Court and this Court - in the present case, in spite of the direction and exhortation of this Court, leading to the present Contempt Case. The petitioners move this Court under Sections 10 - 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') against the respondent, who was the Principal Subordinate Judge at Tirupati at the relevant time. First the leading facts.2. On l4-6-1995, one P. Kishore K...
Vasanthi Vs. Jaya Prakasha Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALD150; 1996(4)ALT535; 1996(2)APLJ66; 1996CriLJ4243
P.S. Mishra, C.J. 1. A letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India by the petitioner has been taken up as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on being marked to this Court by the Supreme Court. In her letter to the Chief Justice of India, the petitioner has stated that she is a practising advocate of this Court and a divorcee with two children, who are studying in Puttaparthy. On 27-2-1995, three persons were taken illegally by Rajendra-Nagar Police and allegedly beaten black and blue. Their mother got a petition filed before this Court of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus on 2-3-1995. Sri. E. V. Bhagiratha Rao, who was then the Public Prosecutor, the petitioner has alleged, came to her residence on 6-3-1995, at about 6.30 p.m. and asked her to withdraw the writ petition as the then Home Minister was interested. When she refused to do so, Sri Bhagiratha Rao threatened her with dire consequences and left her place. She has alleged, 'Before this incidence, fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »