Andhra Pradesh Court July 1997 Judgments

P. Srilakshmi Vs. Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (NiMS) rep. by ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(6)ALT195

M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The controversy in the instant case is with regard to the seniority list of Senior Assistants prepared by the 1st Respondent Institute. The petitioner had filed objections to the said list and by impugned Memo dated 23-8-1994, the objections of the petitioner were rejected and the provisional list was confirmed without any change. In the said provisional list dated 1-6-1994, the petitioner was shown at Sl. No. 12 and Respondent No. 3 herein who is from the same cadre (Personal Secretaries - for short 'PS') as the petitioner was shown at Sl. No. 6. Respondent No. 6 from the same cadre of Personal Secretaries was shown at Sl. No. 9. The other respondents 4, 5, 7 and 8 are from the cadre of Secretarial Assistants and have been shown respectively at Sl.Nos. 7, 8,10 and 11 i.e., above the petitioner who is at Sl.No. 12. The main controversy, however, with regard to inter se seniority in the same cadre that is of Personal Secretaries, between the petitioner and Respondent...

Uppari Muthamma and ors. Vs. Special Tribunal, Under A.P. Land Grabbin ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(6)ALT481

ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. These two writ petitions are directed against the order and decree dated 05-03-1990 in L.G.C.No. 32/89 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad.2. Since the question involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same they are disposed of by a common order.3. Respondents 1 to 10 in the Land Grabbing Case No. 32/89 are the petitioners in W.P.No. 4991/90. Respondent No. 11 in LGC No. 32/89 is the petitioner in W.P.No. 4026/90. All the applicants in the said Land Grabbing Case are the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in both the writ petitions. The 11th respondent in the land grabbing case had acted as G.P.A. Holder of respondents 1 to 10. The applicants who are respondents herein filed the said land grabbing case alleging that the petitioners herein are the land grabbers. After discussing the evidence both oral and documentary, the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, hereinafter referre...

Branch Manager, Manjeera Grameena Bank Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Cheruku Roopa

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainant in O.P. No. 124/1995 District Forum, Medak at Sanga Reddy deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000/- with the opposite party Bank on 30.5.1995 under a short term deposit for 45 days as evidenced by Ex. A-l. Alleging that when the complainant approached the Bank during the second week of August, 1995 for payment of the maturity value, the opposite party failed to pay the same and instead sent a legal notice Ex. A-2 dated 26.8.1995 stating that an amount of Rs. 55,392/- was paid to the Commercial Tax Authorities on 19.6.1995. She, therefore, filed the above complaint for payment of the maturity value together with Rs. 2,000/- towards additional expenses, Rs. 4.500/- towards interest paid by her on loan and Rs. 1,000/- towards legal expenses. 2. The opposite party-Bank in its counter stated that the complainant's husband deposited a sum of Rs. 56.250/- on 21.11.1994 under TDR No. 047254 for the purpose of bank guarantee to the Excise Superintendent...

K.C. Reddy Vs. Hindustan Cables Ltd. and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(4)ALT182

Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. The petitioner in both the revision petitions is common and respondents are also common. Therefore, both the revision petitions are disposed of by a common order. The petitioner herein is referred as a contractor and respondent No. 1 herein is referred as a Company. 2. It appears from the record that the Company had entrusted the work of construction of certain buildings to the Contractor in the year 1982-83. Three agreements were executed between the parties and the Contractor started constructions of the buildings and completed by 1987. As stated earlier three agreements were executed between the parties and in all the three agreements there was a covenant that in case of dispute between the parties, the matter be settled by an Arbitrator who will be appointed by respondent No. 1 herein as per Clause 52 of the General Conditions of Contract. After completion of work, the Company refused to make payment. Therefore, a dispute arose between the Contractor and t...

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. G.V. Raman Laxman

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1998]109STC583(AP)

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the formula incorporated in section 8-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1996 will apply to the facts of this case. 2. This revision is filed by the State against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 735 of 1985, dated March 17, 1986. The Tribunal took the view that only when Central sales tax was not separately charged and collected by was embedded in the sale price, the formula was attracted. This view is challenged before us. 3. Section 8-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 deals with determination of turnover. It reads as follows : '8-A. Determination of turnover. - (1) In determining the turnover of a dealer for the purposes of this Act, the following deductions shall be made from the aggregate of the sale prices, namely : a) the amount arrived at by applying the following formula :- rate of tax x aggregate of sale prices ______________________________________...

Rudda Ramakrishnam Raju Vs. Kalidindi Ramakrishnam Raju and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1997(5)ALT194

ORDERV. Bhaskara Rao, J.1. The Revision Petitioner is defendant in O.S.Nos. 7/92 and 6/92 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram. He filed I.A.Nos. 504/96 and 505/96 for a similar relief and they have been dismissed on similar grounds. As common questions of law and fact are involved in both these revision petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The facts in C.R.P.No. 2357 of 1997 are that the revision petitioner is said to have borrowed a sum of Rs. 65,000/- from the respondent and executed the suit pronote dated 30-12-1988. He is resisting the above suit on various grounds one of them being that the pronote is materially altered inasmuch as the date 30-12-1985 is altered to 30-12-1988 underneath the signature on the revenue stamps therein and hence he sought for sending the suit pronote to the handwriting expert for his opinion.3. The facts in CR.P.No. 2382 of 1997 are that the Revision Petitioner is said to have borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the respon...

Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.H. Rathaiah and Anot ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainant in O.P. 97/95 District Forum, Guntur was awarded contract by the first opposite party i.e. Superintending Engineer, CERP Circle i.e. Government for carrying out the work of improvements to Bhimunigunta drain from 2.472 kms. to 5.60 kms. consisting of excavation of earth from the drain, formation of standard banks on both sides of the drain wherever necessary, construction of model sections and pipe inlets. The complainant insured with the second opposite party i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 10,68,000/- covering the period from 20.5.1992 to 19.8.1992 plus 3 months maintenance period against the loss or damage or destruction by any cause including the loss caused due to rain and cyclone. The complainant paid the requisite premium. According to the complainant he completed the work. But during the maintenance period there was sudden depression causing cyclone resulting in the drain received the flood water between ...

Sardela Damodar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1996(2)ALD859; 1998CriLJ277; II(1997)DMC485

ORDER1. The question that calls for consideration in this petition is whether the Complainant or the relations or interested persons of deceased victim can lay application under section 439 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the accused. 2. This petition is filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. by the brother of the deceased for cancellation of bail granted by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal in Crime No. 46/97, dated : 21-5-1997. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondents No. 2 to 6 herein are the Accused No. 1 to 5 in Crime No. 46/97 of P.S. Parkal. They are alleged to have committed offences under sections 498-A and 306 IPC. The deceased was sister of the petitioner who was married to A-1 in 1988 and some dowry was given to A-1. But, however, when the brothers of A-1 namely A-2 and A-3 got married, they received higher dowry and therefore A-1 also started demanding additional dowry and in that process she was being subjected the deceased to cru...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Klayman Porcelains Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1998]229ITR735(AP)

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. In this reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question is referred to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the lump sum payment of DM 1,62,450 made by the resident company to the non-resident company for supply of designs and drawings (engineering for the kiln) did not constitute 'income' by way of royalty of the non-resident company, within the meaning of the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) ?' 2. In the assessment year 1980-81, Klayman Porcelains Ltd., Hyderabad, hereinafter referred to as the Indian company, which has been treated as statutory agents for Keramische Industries of Berlin, West Germany, hereinafter referred to as the non-resident company (NRC), entered into a memorandum of understanding on December 20, 1979, which, inter alia, provided for three types of works. We are conce...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Elemech Industrial Constructions

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1998]229ITR503(AP)

Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri, J. 1. In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question is referred to this court for opinion which relates to the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The respondent-assessee, a registered firm, carries on business in fabrication work. It claimed investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1982-83 in a sum of Rs. 2,09,934 and for the assessment year 1983-84 in a sum of Rs. 2,84,363. The Income-tax Officer declined to grant the allowance on the ground that it is not an industrial undertaking. It was noted that the nature of the assessee's contract work, was structural fabrication wherein raw material like steel rods and steel sheets, supplied by the c...