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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Coromandel Agro Products Oil Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(AP)520; [1998]230ITR335(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. In this reference, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short 'the Act', at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law is referred to this court for opinion, viz. : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of the interest of Rs. 8,17,921 paid to the bank on packing credit loan ?' 2. The question relates to the assessment year 1980-81 and arises out of the order of the Tribunal in R.A. No. 138/Hyd of 1986, dated December 13, 1985. 3. The assessee is a public limited company. It is engaged in the business of export of oil cakes. It exported oil cake to West Germany and claimed deduction, inter alia, under section 35B of the Act. The assessee availed of the facility of 'packing credit loan' on which it paid interest of Rs. 8,17,921 to banks. The claim for dedu...
Dasari Durgamma and anr. Vs. Dasari Gangisetti and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD492; 1998(2)ALT298
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in I. ANo.489 of 1990 in A.S.No.29 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram. The said appeal suit was filed against the judgment in O.S.No.9 to 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Mummidivaram. The Plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the original suit are the petitioners in the present revision petition.2. The suit was originally filed in the trial Court for the relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaint schedule lands. Later on the relief of 'declaration of title' was also added in the plaint. The suit was dismissed having held that there are some discrepancies in the plaint schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No.29 of 1988 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram.3. The appeal was filed in the appellate court on 4-4-1988. The appeal suit was disposed of on 5-4-1990 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The...
National Industrial Training Institute, Rep. by Principal, Md. Nasir V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT165
ORDERC.V.N. Sastry, J.1. This revision is directed against an order dismissing the application for amendment of the plaint. The suit is one filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of a building from which the petitioner is allegedly evicted by the respondent by force. The suit was filed in the year 1992. According to the petitioner, the respondent subsequently demolished the said building while the suit is pending in violation of an order of status quo granted by the Court. The petitioner, therefore, filed the instant application on 13-8-1997 seeking to convert the suit into one for damages. The lower Court dismissed the application observing that in the written statement which was filed in the year 1992 itself, the respondent-defendant pleaded that the building in question was not in existence, that in the application for amendment the petitioner, without mentioning the date of the alleged demolition of the building, vaguely mentioned that the build...
Jaju and Co., Partnership Firm Rep. by A-1 to A-5 Vs. Shanta Devi Dhoo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALD(Cri)926; 1997(6)ALT235; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)46
ORDERY. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This Contempt Case is filed to prosecute the respondent for contempt of the Court for abusing process of the Court by filing false and frivolous complaints based on stolen and forged cheques, knowing fully well that such cheques are not genuine and they have been stolen and signatures have been forged therein and for filing false affidavit before the Court, suppressing the material facts and knowing fully well that the contents of the affidavit are false, frivolous and fabricated.2. The facts of the case are that a criminal complaint was filed on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint holding that there is no debt. The complainant has to file civil suit for recovery of capital amount and goodwill amount. Against that order Revision Petitions Nos. 80/95 & 81/95 were filed before the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and they were also dismissed conf...
Srungavarapu Venkateshwara Rao Vs. Kolla Ramaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT265
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Parchur dated 30-6-1997 is challenged by the petitioner who is the judgment-debtor in E.A. 157/97 in E.A.No. 224/84 in E.P.18/67 concerning decree in O.S.No.22/65.Thepetitioner is the judgment-debtor whose property was sold in execution sale. After so many proceedings between the parties, wherein E.A.224/84 in E.P.18/67 filed by the auction-purchaser which was dismissed for default, came to be restored to file by an order of this Court in C.R,P.No.2495/94 dated 15-10-1996. The learned Subordinate Judge passed the impugned order directing delivery of Item-3 of the sale certificate to the respondent-auction purchaser. The flood of facts and controversies solidifies into these admitted positions. The property was sold on 6-11-1967 in favour of the respondent. E.A.796/97 was filed by the Official Receiver under Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. to set aside the sale which came to be dismissed on 5-7-1968. The sale was thereby c...
B. Narayana and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. Rep. by Its Chief Secretar ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT292
ORDERP.S. Mishra, C.J.1. Petitions aforementioned, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the main amongst them being Writ Petition No. 13765 of 1997, are directed against the Government Orders in G.O.Ms. No. 68, Social Welfare (J1) Department, dated 6-6-1997 and G.O.Ms. No. 69, Social Welfare (J1) Department, dated 7-6-1997, which, inter alia, divide and/or categorise the Scheduled Castes who are listed in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 (Presidential Order, 1950), as amended in 1976 for the State of Andhra Pradesh, into four groups as 'A', 'B', 'C, and 'D' and purport to accordingly reserve for each group of the Scheduled Castes communities, posts including for filling up of backlog vacancies in the Public Service and seats in different professional and other educational institutions.2. G.O.Ms. No. 68, SW (J1) Department, dated 6-6-1997 reads as follows:'GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESHABSTRACTAppointment of Commission of Inquiry, headed by Justice Shri P. Ramach...
Devarapu Narasimharao Vs. Yerrabothula Peda Venkaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT513
Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.1. The 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 17/79 and O.S. No. 61/79 and assignee decree holder in E.P. No. 61/79 is the appellant.2. The decree holder assignor of decree in O.S. No. 312/68, along with the assignee of the decree, that is the appellant, filed a joint application for execution in E.P. No. 61/79 (old No. E.P. 281/77) against the deceased G. Tatayya, judgment debtor, for recovery of possession of the suit properties and arrears of rent. They obtained an order for recovery of possession alleging that the 1st respondent-plaintiff was obstructing the delivery of possession to the appellant. The appellant filed an application in E.A.756/79 for removal of the obstruction while the 1st respondent-plaintiff filed E.A. No. 197/79 Under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also filed civil suit in O.S. No. 61/79 for permanent injunction against Smt. Lakshmi Narasamma and the appellant. He also filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 17/79 for specific performance o...
Anapu Gandhi and anr. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer-cum-revenue Divisio ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD409
1. The petitioners in W.P.No.4242/97 seek annulment of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in reference No.B 1/8024/96, dated 27-11-1996. Similarannulment is sought in W.P.No. 4604/97 but by different petitioners and in respect of different survey numbers. Since the nature of controversies in both the Writ Petitions are the same, both of them are being disposed of by this common judgment 2. Section 4(1) notification is challenged and sought to be challenged on several grounds, such as:(1) The lands under acquisition are agricultural lands more particularly coconut gardens; (2) The paper publication of the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was made beyond 40 days period; (3) The petitioners were small farmers; (4) Possession of the land under acquisition was not taken within 90 days period as required by A.P. Amendment Act, 1983; (5) When a declaration under Section 6 is quashed, enquiry under Section ...
State of Andhra Pradesh, Ministry of Minor Irrigation and Others Vs. M ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD160; 1997(6)ALT207
ORDER1. This case is covered by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in VUDA v. V. Narayana Raju, 1995 (2) SC Scale 234, and a latest pronouncementof a Division Bench of this Court in T.T.D. Committee v. M. Rama Murihy, 1996 (1)ALD1149.2. The question involved is whether the parties to an agreement can stipulate that the dispute between them exceeding the value of Rs.50,000/- should be arbitrated through a Court. The respondent is a contractor. He and the petitioners entered into an agreement on 9-7-1986 in regard to certain work with a stipulation that their disputes should be arbitrated as follows:(i)Claims upto Rs. 10,000/-Superintending Engineer, Irrig tion Circle, Vijaywada .(ii)Claims of Rs. 10,000/-- and aboveupto Rs. 50,000/-Chief Engineer. SrisailmProject.(iii)Claims of Rs. 50,000/- and aboveCourt of competent jurisdiction.3. OP No.7 of 1994 was filed by the respondent before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole under Section 8(1)(b) and Section 20 of the A...
Commissioner, Rajamundry Municipality Vs. P. Venkata Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(6)ALT644
ORDERD.H. Nasir, J.1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties and having gone through the relevant records, I am firmly of the opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity about the discretion exercised by the Principal District Munsif, Rajahmundry, in I.A.No.1396 of 1993 in O.S.No.243/93 dated 7-12-1994, to direct the petitioner before him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as against the half yearly tax as against the liability fixed by the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry at Rs. 1,674/- for half yearly period. The learned District Judge in his impugned order observed that it was a settled principle of law that the Civil Court has no power to fix the quantum of tax and it could only go into the question whether the procedure for enhancement of tax was properly followed by the Municipality or not while enhancing the tax liability. There could be no doubt with this proposition of law. However, there is no illegality about directing the assessee to deposit a part of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »