Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Y. Bevera Appalanaidu and ors. Vs. Yelagada Raju and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT617
ORDERC.V.N. Sastri, J.1. In spite of service of notices, the respondents have not appeared to oppose the revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.2. This C.R.P. is directed against an order refusing to permit an amendment of the plaint. The petitioners initially filed the suit against respondents 1 to 7 for a perpetual injunction restraining respondents 1 to 7 from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. The petitioners have also filed a petition for grant of temporary injunction against respondents 1 to 7 and obtained orders of interim injunction against them. The petition for temporary injunction is said to be still pending. On an objection taken by respondents 1 to 7 that the suit lands are Government lands and that the Government is also a necessary and proper party to the suit, the petitioners got the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Vizianagaram impleaded as 8th defendant in the suit....
Alladi Suryanarayana and anr. Vs. Yelluru Muralinath Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT396
ORDERRamesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This C.R.P. has been filed by the petitioner aggrievedby the order passed by the learned District Judge in C.M.A. No. 44 of 1995. The respondent herein was the original plaintiff. He had instituted the suit against the petitioners herein in the Court of the III Addl. District Munsif, Nellore, in O.S. No. 621/95 for permanent injunction. He had also filed LA. No. 489/95 for interim injunction. It appears from the record that the plaintiff was entrusted with the contract of construction of the building for the petitioners herein, but for one reason or the other there was breach of contract and the work was stopped. The defendants did not allow the plaintiff to complete the work and therefore the aforesaid suit was filed and he had also filed an interim application LA. No. 489/95 for temporary injunction. The said application appears to have been allowed by the learned District Munsif. Against the said order th...
Nyshadam Narasimha Pratap Vs. Nyshadam Audilakshmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Reported in: II(1997)DMC161
Lingaraja Rath, J.1. The petition seeking dissolution of marriage by the husband-appellant having been dismissed, this appeal has been preferred. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.6.1985. The appellant in his petition seeking divorce stated the marriage to have been consummated and later the respondent to have also joined him at his residence in Cuddapah. It is also stated that the appellant's mother asked the respondent to go to her parent's house in the month of Ashadham as per the family custom but she refused to go but that the respondent used to be absent from the house mostly taking advantage of the petitioner-appellant's absence for about 25 days in a month in connection with his official duties. The appellant works in Flying Squad of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Later on the appellant found growth of moustache and beard on the face of the respondent and on being questioned the respondent admitted the fact and had stated that she was taking care to cover such growth by a...
Sidhvi Constructions (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: [1997]90CompCas299(AP)
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. The writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction declaring the action of the first respondent in allowing and registering the company of Sidhvin Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd. as illegal and arbitrary. 2. A few relevant facts are necessary for deciding the issue. 3. The petitioner-company (Sidhvi Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd.) was incorporated as a private limited company on December 21, 1993, having its registered office at Kakinada. The principal activities and objects of the company are for carrying on business as designers, builders, contractors and engineers. The third respondent company was incorporated on September 14, 1994, with the name of Sidhvin Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd. with similar objects. The dispute that cropped up consequent on the incorporation of the third respondent-company is the resemblance of the name. As already noticed, the name of the petitioner-company is Sidhvi Constructio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Panduranga Engineering Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR400(AP)
ASSESSMENT--Whether assessment under section 144 should necessarily be followed by cancellation of registration of firm.Ratio:There is no rule that in every case where a best judgment assessment was suffered by the assessee, the assessing officer must invariably pass an order refusing to continue the registration of the firm.Held:There is no inference that in every case where a best judgment assessment was suffered by the assessee, the assessing officer must invariably pass an order refusing to continue the registration of the firm for the assessment year in question. Cancellation of the registration should only be after complying with the principles of natural justice, which necessarily implies that if the assessing officer is satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee, he may drop the proposal to cancel the registration. Withdrawal of the benefit of registration in respect of an assessment year results in serious consequences. It is penal in nature in that the consequenc...
Syed Yadullah Vs. Maleka Banu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT183
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The petitioner is respondent in the Rent Control case - R.C.No. 831 of 1992 - on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. That R.C. was filed against the respondent for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. The stand taken by the petitioner is that the original allottee of the building entered into an agreement of sale in the year 1963 with the petitioner, that the petitioner was paying the instalments due to the Labour Department and has been in occupation of the building and that after the death of the original allottee by name Syed Omar, his wife sold away the building to the respondent herein without lawful authority. Thus, the petitioner is denying the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The contention of the respondent who filed the eviction petition is that the allotment in favour of Syed Omar was cancelled in view of the default in the payment of dues to the Labour Department and it was re-allotted ...
Y. Syamalamma Vs. Kamalamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT1019
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. In this revision, refusal of the lower Court to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to cross-examine her own witness P.W.3 Under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act is the controversy which has fallen for consideration before this Court.2. Petitioner instituted a Suit in O.S.No. 98 of 1988 for permanent injunction against the respondent basing on a registered sale deed dated 27-5-1988 stated to have been executed by one Venkatachalapathi. Issues were also framed in the said suit on 5-7-1989. The defendant in the said suit has also filed a separate suit O.S.No 117 of 1988, against the said Venkatachalapathi and the petitioner herein who have figured as defendants 1 and 2 respectively, for specific performance basing on the suit agreement dated 22-3-1981 executed by said. Venkatachalapathi in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 117 of 1988.3. Since the subject matter of suit property in both suits is one and the same, a joint memo was filed for trial of these two...
Sajana Granites, Rep. by Its Partner, P. Jayaramireddy, Pulivendra (V) ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)ALT1059
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 158/92 pending on the file of the Court of the Addl. Subordinate Judge at Ongole. The C.R.P is directed against the order dated 1-8-1996 of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge passed in I.A.No. 1298 of 1996 in O.S.No. 158 of 1992 allowing the application filed by Mandava Rambabu, the respondent herein under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead himself as defendant No. 15 in the suit.2. The facts leading to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition be summarised briefly as under:The petitioners filed the suit in O.S.No. 158 of 1992 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole for declaration that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of Acs.5-73 cents of land; i.e, item No. 1 of plaint schedule and the plaintiff No. 3 is the absolute owner of item No. II of plaint schedule and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 10 to 12 (officia...
Sri Srinivasa Sago Manufacturing Company Kakinda and ors. Vs. Agricult ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1996
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD62; 1997(3)ALT829
ORDERSyed Siiah Mohammed Quadri, J 1. The petitioners, 19 in number, seek a writ of Mandamus declaring the demand made by the Agricultural Market Committee, Kakinada to obtain licences under Section 7(1) of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and to pay market fee as illegal and for a consequential direction to restrain the Market Committee, Kakinada from acting upon the said demand.2. The petitioners are carrying on the business of manufacturing 'Sago'. They established factories around Somalkot and Kakinada- The 'Sago' is prepared from Cassava which is raised by the fanners in their lands, beyond the municipal limits of Somalkot and Kakinada. Cassava is not fit for human consumption directly and is not available in the market. The Government of Andhra Pradcsh have issued a notification describing the operational area of Agricultural Market Committee within a radius of 25 K.ms., around the municipal limits of Somalkot and Kakinada. Agricultural produce has ...
Sona Optics Rep. by Partner Abdul Kareem Vs. Shyam Sunderbhargava and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT105
Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.1. This is tenant's revision from the common judgment dated 16-2-1996 in R.A. No. 357/91 and R.A. No. 358/91 by which the common order dated 24-7-1991 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in R.C. No. 656/86 (old R.C. No. 302/84) and R.C. No. 268/87 was reversed and the petitioner-firm and its partners have been directed to vacate the suit accommodation.2. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of C.R.P. 910/96 for the sake of brevity and convenience.3. It is no longer in dispute before me that the petitioner-firm was initially inducted as a tenant by the predecessor-in-title of the respondents, namely late Gopinath Bhargava on 23-8-1978 for a period of eleven months at the rate of Rs. 300-00 Ps. per month besides water charges and later the monthly rent of the building bearing No. 4-1-991 to 4-1-993/1, Abid Road, Hyderabad, popularly known as 'Bhargava Buildings' (in short 'suit accommodation') for non-residential purposes. Aft...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »