Andhra Pradesh Court November 1997 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.
S. Nagi Reddy Vs. Joint Sub-registrar-i, Registration and Stamps, Tiru ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD81; 1999(4)ALT556
ORDER1. The petitioner purchased 275 square yards of plot comprised in plot No.12 which is apart of Survey No.57/3 of Tirupathi Village. According to the petitioner, he went to the office of the respondent to submit the sale document for regislration on 24-4-1997 and again on 22-5-1997, 9-7-1997 and on 16-7-1997. But the respondent refused to accept the document without assigning any reason. Under those circumstances the petitionerfiled the writ petition in this Court on 18-8-1997.2. In response to the rule nisi, the respondent has filed a counter. In the counter besides stating about the communication received from the custodian relating to the lands comprised in Survey No.57/3 of Tirupathi Village belonging to Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi, in para 3, he has stated that the petitioner never approached him for registration of the document and whenever the petitioner submits the document the same would be processed as per the provisions of the Registration Act. On the face of it, it...
P. Jagannadham Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour C ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: 1998(4)ALD3; 1998(4)ALT421
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. The petitioner who was a conductor in APSRTC challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Warangal in I.D. No.95 of 1986 dated 19-2-1987. The Writ petition was dismissed for default on 4-12-1996.Today, we have allowed the petitioner's application for restoration and heard the writ petition on merits.2, On an inspection of the bus, which the petitioner was conducting on 17-1-1979, some cash and ticket irregularities were found and the following six charges were framed:(1) For having violated the rule 'Issue & Start'. (2) For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of 5 passengers having boarded the bus at Husnabad stage No. 11 and bound for Koheda, Stage No. 16 despite collecting the requisite fare from them at their boarding point itself. (3) For having failed to issue tickets to three passengers having boarded the bus at Pandilla (stage No.12) and bound for Koheda (stage No. 16) despite the requisite fare from them at their board...
Ch. Sarath Chandra Bose Vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD441
ORDERS.S. Mohammed Quadri, ACJ1. Sub-section (3-A) of Section 7 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 enjoins that if the amount of gratuity payable under subsection (3) of that section is not paid by the employer within the period of thirty days, the employer shall pay from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government by notification specify. The exception to this Rule is where the delay is attributable to the fault of the employee and in such a situation the employer has to obtain permission in writing from thecontrolling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. Admittedly in this case, the action of the respondent does not fall in the exception to the sub-clause referred to above. There is a delay of eight months in payment of the gratuity to the petitioner. The learned single Judge in...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Roda Mistry
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(AP)78; [1998]231ITR12(AP); [1998]100TAXMAN54(AP)
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. The following question of law is referred under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that provisions of ss. 54E(3) and 155(10B) of the IT Act, 1961, were applicable in the case of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1975-76 whereas these sections were inserted by the Finance Act, 1978, and applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 1978 ?' 2. The assessment year is 1975-76. The assessment was initially completed under s. 143(3) on 4th Sept., 1978, on a total income of Rs. 57,700 which included capital gain that arose as a result of compensation received by the assessee from the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, on account of acquisition of her land in the year 1974. Subsequently, the city civil Court enhanced the compensation by a judgment dt. 23rd Feb., 1978, to Rs. 4,64,900. The assessee invested the entire additional compensation in 7-year National Rura...
M. Sadiq Vali Vs. P. Lakshmamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD353; 1998(2)ALT79
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hindupur dismissing RC.A.No.4/91 preferred by the petitioner. The appellate authority confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. The tenant is the revision petitioner herein. Both the Rent Controller, as well as the appellate authority held that the petitioner/tenant is liable to be evicted from the premises in his occupation. Hence, this revision petition.2. The respondent herein is the landlady and the petitioner is the tenant in respect of a non-residential premises in question. The present monthly rent payable by the petitioner/ tenant is Rs. 130-00, payable on or before fifth of every English calender month. The respondent herein filed rent control case against the petitioner/tenant on the ground that the petitioner-tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rents and the premises in question is required for her personal occupation, as she is in bona fide req...
State of Andhra Pradesh and anr. Vs. Tippireddy Channareddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD441; 1998(1)ALT218
ORDER1. These two petitions are between the same parties, namely, petitioners are the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Executive Engineer, N.S. Canals, Kurhichedu, Prakasham district and the superintending Engineer, N.S. Canals, Peollore Colony, Ongole and the respondent No. 1 is the contractor in relation to two contract works executed by him for the petitioners. These revisions are directed against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Markapur in O.S.No.5 of 1993 and O.S.No.83 of 1992 dated 30-1-1997 respectively. Although the subject-matter of the two petitions involve two different claims, since common questions of law and facts emanate from them, both the learned advocates have agreed that the petitions to be heard together and disposed of by means of this common judgment. Reference to parties shall be as per the status they occupied in the Court below.2. Two works were entrusted to the petitioner by virtue of two contract works, namely, (1) construction of U.T. ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Progressive Engineering Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(AP)551; [1998]230ITR729(AP); [1998]100TAXMAN25(AP)
P. Venkatarama Reddy, J. 1. At the instance of the CIT, Karnataka Central, Bangalore, the following substantial question of law is referred under s. 256(1) of the IT Act for the decision of the High Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the tippers in the hands of general works contractor were not road transport vehicles, but were the tools of the business of the assessee and the assessee was entitled to get investment allowance on the cost of these tippers ?' 2. The assessment years relevant to this referred case are 1979-80 to 1982-83. The respondent is a registered firm engaged in the business of civil contract works. In connection with the business, the assessee purchased hydraulically operated tippers mounted on truck chassis for loading earth, etc., and unloading the same at the project site without the aid of human agency. The ITO as well as the AAC denied to the assessee the benefit of deduction under ...
S.L. Kameswari Vs. Govt. of A.P., Education Department, Hyderabad and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD84
ORDER1. The order of the 4th Respondent i.e., the District Educational Officer, Prakasam District in Re. No.2631/ C5/90 dated 14-6-1997 is impugned in this writ petition. Under the impugned order the 5th Respondent was appointed as a correspondent to the Hindu Aided Elementary School, Ravinuthala village, Prakasam District on the ground that the petitioner's husband, to whom the founder of the school bequeathed the school under a Registered Will dated 1-4-1985, cannot work as Manager of the School as he happened to be a Zilla Parishad employee under Rule 55 of the A.P. Integrated Educational Rules, 1966.2. The factual matrix of this case are that one Sri S. Venkateswarlu established Hindu Aided Elementary School at Ravinuthala village, Prakasam district way back in the year 1926 and the School seemed to have been admitted to grant-in-aid at a later date. On attaining the old age the said Sri Venkateswarlu seemed to have initially executed a Registered Will in favour of the 5th responde...
Athota Anjaiah Vs. State Bank of India Kandukur and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD468; 1998(1)ALT286
ORDER1. These are all the petitionsinvolving common questions in different suits comprising of similar I.As. Therefore, they are being heard together and are being disposed of by means of this common order.2. The applications were filed under Order 8(A) read with Section 151 C.P.C. by some applicants to implead the 2nd respondent - A.P. Irrigation Development Corporation,Ongole (for short 'the A.P.I.D.C.) called third party in the suit and those applications were dismissed. The ground for filing such applications is that in a loan transaction between the plaintiff- the State Bank of India, Kandukur and Ihe respective defendants, they claim that they did not receive the entire amount and the AP1DC was to subsidise some portion of the loan for which they are entitled to be reimbursed and therefore they sought for the third party proceedings under Order 8(A). It was resisted both by the plaintiff in the suits and also the proposed third party.3. The learned Munsif, after hearing both the ...
Musunuri Anjaneyulu and anr. Vs. Koona Lakshmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD712; 1998(1)ALT254
ORDER1. The judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge in S.C.No.4 of 1996 dated 21-2-1997 are challenged in this revision petition.2. The pelilioners are the defendants in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff. The suit was filed on the basis of a pronote for recovery of Rs.5,000/- with interest and costs. The defendants pleaded to have discharged the pronote on payment of Rs.7,293/- on 18-4-1994 but in spite of the payment, the pronote was not returned by the plaintiff. They also contended that the purported signatures to the endorsement dated 5-11-1994 upon which the suit was based for the purpose of limitation had been forged. Afler trial, the learned sub-Judge rejected the defence as above and decreed the suit.3. In addition to the grounds raised in the petition, Mr. Vallum, the learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the finding of the learned Sub-Judge is opposed to the evidence on record and patently an error. In regard to the discharge of the pronote, he h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »