Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Pestonji D. Baria and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD38; 1997(6)ALT381
ORDERA.S. Bhate, J 1. This order disposes of all the three writ petitions viz., W.P.No.11031 of 1989; W.P.No.13353 of 1989 and W.P.No.29847 of 1995. 2. One Sivaram Parasrami Navani contended that he was allotted Ac.12-21 gts. of land in S.No.381 of Mancherial village, Rajendranagar mandal in Ranga Reddy district by the then Settlement Officer and Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bombay. This was under proceedings in R.C.No.Hyd/57/1786 dated 7-3-1969. The proceedings were marked to the Deputy Custodian-cum-District Collector, Hyderabad and the Managing Officer (Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk) for effecting the delivery of the said vacant possession of the said allotted land to Sri Sivaram Parasrami Navani (for short 'Navani'). The applications were made on behalf of Navani for handing over the vacant possession in pursuance of the aforesaid order. Ultimately Mr. Navani allegedly made a petition before the Custodian and Secretary to Commissioner of Survey Settlement and Land Records, A.P....
Pentala Raghavaiah Vs. Boggawarapu Peda Ammayya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD11; 1997(5)ALT405
1. This revision is filed against the orders dated 19-6-96 passed in E.A.33/87 in E.P.46/78 in O.S.105/64 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Guntur, by which the claim of the petitioner herein in the E.P. schedule properties was rejected in part.2. The respondent herein filed O.S. 105/64 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Guntur against Boggavarapu Pedda Ammaiah and Company as first defendant; P. Yellamanda, who is the father of the present petitioner, as second defendant, P. Seetharamaiah, the paternal grand-father of the petitioner herein, as third defendant and some other defendants for dissolution of the first defendant firm and for recovery of some amount by settlement of accounts. Final decree was passed in the said suit against the second defendant P. Yellamanda, who is the father of the petitioner herein, directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 1,45,929-59 Ps. to the respondent herein. A partition deed was executed between the father and the grand father of the ...
Aleti Jagadishwari and ors. Vs. Aleti Bikshapathy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALD545; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)729; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)24; 1998CriLJ2503
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 29-3-1995 of the learned Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Criminal R.P. No. 34 of 1994 on his file modifying the order of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, dated 25-3-1994 in M.C. No. 8 of 1991. 2. The first revision petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent. The revision petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are their sons. For the purpose of convenience the first revision petitioner and the respondent are referred to as wife and husband in this case. The Revision Petitioners filed M.C. No. 8 of 1991 under section 125(1)A and B of Cr.P.C. for claiming maintenance at Rs. 400/- for the wife and at Rs. 200/- each to the sons from the date of petition on the ground that the respondent-husband deserted his wife and children and that they were subjected to harassment by demanding her to bring more dowry and that the husband also beat her mercilessly and drove her out of the house and that the husband has got suf...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.C. Rangaiah and Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(AP)694; [1998]230ITR385(AP); [2000]110TAXMAN10(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. This is a reference under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Pursuant to a direction of this Court in ITC no. 62 of 1986, made on 26th November, 1987, the Tribunal referred the following questions of law to this Court for its opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in cancelling the order passed by the CIT under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the CIT had jurisdiction to pass orders under s. 263 since the facts subsequently revealed showed that the ITO did not make proper enquiries when granting registration to the firm (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in directing that the material available at the time of passing the order under s. 263 but which was not available at the time the ITO passed the impugned order dt....
A. Jagadishwari and ors. Vs. A. Bikshapathy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: I(1998)DMC183
A. Hanumanthu, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 29.3.1495 of the learned Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Criminal R.P. No. 34 of 1994 on his file modifying the order of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, dated 25.3.1994 in M.C. No. 8 of 1991.2. The first revision petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent. The revision petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are their son. For the purpose of convenience the first revision petitioner and the respondent are referred to as wife and husband in this case. The revision petitioners filed M.S. No. 8 of 1991 under Section 125(1) A and B of Cr.P.C. for claiming maintenance at Rs. 400/- for the wife and at Rs. 200/- each to the sons from the date of petition on the ground that the respondent-husband deserted his wife and children and that they were subjected to harassment by demanding her to bring more dowry and that the husband also beat her mercilessly and drove her out of the house and that the husband ...
Nature Park Walkers Association Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD111; 1998(2)ALT380
ORDER1. These two writ petitions challenging the notification by which the area in Jubilee Hills known as Kasu Brahmananda Reddy National park was notified as a National Park.2. The first writ petition No.775 of 1994 was filed when the petitioners who were usually going for a walk in that area found that the gate of that park was closed and they were barred entry. They referred to G.O.Ms.No.330dated 7-1-1990 by which this area which originally belonged to Prince Mukkaram Jah was taken over by the Government and entrusted to the Forest Department for maintenance. In that G.O., it is stated that the Government has decided to entrust the land to the Forest Department for developing it into a 'Green Park', and that the entire land shall be used for developing a park for the benefit of the people as 'lung space' in the city. An interim direction was given in that writ petition to allow the petitioners to enter the park and, thereafter, the respondents including the impleaded respondent file...
Meka Nageswara Rao Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Guntur and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD159; 1997(6)ALT817
ORDERV. Rajagopal Reddy, J.1. The Petitioner was carrying on business in retail sale of liquor at Angalakuduru village. He was granted licence Under Rule 23 (x) of A.P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970 (for short' the Rules'), on 14-10-1987 for a block period of 5 years. He, however, stopped business on 30-09-90. The 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 12-10-1989 directing him to pay an amount of Rs.50,847/-as differential licence fee for the period from 28-3-88 to 30-09-90, stating that Angalakuduru village falls within the limits of 1 km. from the periphery of Tenali Municipality due to the inclusion of Sullanabad into Tenali Municipality. The Petitioner's explanation was rejected and the petitioner was directed to pay the amount demanded, by order dated 30-12-1989. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Guntur, who dismissed the appeal by Order dated 8-3-91. This order is under challenge in this writ petition,2. Th...
K. Chandra Sekhara Rao Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Excise and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT658
ORDERV. Rajagopala Reddy, J.1. Since the question of law raised is common, these writ petitions are disposed of by common order.2. The facts of W.P. No. 7486/91 are as follows: The petitioner started a partnership firm in the name of M/s Rama Krishna Wines and Bar at Gaddipadu village in Guntur District. Bar licence was obtained as per A.P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1980 (for short 'the Rules') on 12-8-1988 for a block period of 5 years and he has been carrying on the business. While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 27-11-1989 informing that the licensee's premises falls within the limits of Guntur Municipality w.e.f. 28-12-1987 and hence he was liable to pay the differential licence fee of Rs. 97,000/- with effect from 12-8-1988,, the date of issuance of licence. It was mentioned in the said notice that' the Government of A.P. by G.O.Ms. No. 944, M.A., dated 25-11-1987, included Gaddipadu village in the Guntur Municipality. The petitioner sub...
Agguna Suramma and anr. Vs. Pariga Komalo and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT370
ORDERKrishna Saran Shrivastav, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, in A.S.No.79/1985, confirming the judgment and decree for specific performance and possession passed by the Subordinate Judge, Sompeta in O.S.No.86/83, dated 23-8-1985.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that, on 15-2-1977, the first defendant had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the suit land at the rate of Rs. 16/- per cent and had received an advance of Rs. 1,500/- on the same day. It was agreed between them that the sale deed would be executed within two months therefrom and in the meantime the land would be measured to ascertain the actual consideration to be paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed. The possession remained with the first defendant. The plaintiff laid a suit for specific performance of the contract and possess...
Gram Panchayat Committee, Potharam (V), Mallial Mandal, Karimnagar Dis ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT112
D.H. Nasir, J.1. The controversy between the parties lies in a very narrow compass in this Revision Petition inasmuch as the issue whether delay if any in taking Execution Proceedings could be condoned under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act which categorically excludes Execution Proceeding under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code, with greater emphasis on the proposition that no delay had taken place. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently urged that the proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short 'the Wages Act') were not excluded from the purview of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, there was no reason why it should be tagged with the provisions of Order XXI of C.P.C., for precluding the petitioner from taking advantage of the said provisions. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also drew my attention to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act which provides that 'where any special or local law prescribed for any suit,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »