Andhra Pradesh Court October 1998 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.
Uni Metal Alloys Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Apseb, Hyderabad and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD558
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner assails the action of the respondents in withdrawing the 25% power rebate allowed to the petitioner from 15-10-1987 to January, 1988 and debiting the total sum of Rs.6,65,875.97 to its account and calling uponthe petitioner to pay the said sum to avoid disconnection of power supply.2. The petitioner established a mini steel plant which went into regular commercial production from 1-2-1985. In G.O. Ms. No.654, dated 13-7-1976 the Government granted 25% rebate on power tariff for certain specified industries for the initial period of three years commencing from the date of going into commercial production. It is not in dispute that mini steel plant was one of the industries specified in the said G.O. and as such the petitioner was entitled for 25% rebate on power tariff, the petitioner was also granted the eligibility certificate by the competent authority that is the Industries Department on 21-3-1985. In B.P. Ms. No. 691, dated 10-8-1976 the...
Government of A.P. and Others Vs. J. Sridevi and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD738; 1999(1)ALT6
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J. 1. Inthis writ appeal, the ranks of the parties mentioned in the writ petition.2. This appeal is by respondents 1, 2 and 4 in W.P.No.5929 of 1997 aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioners who sought reliefs of writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent authority to declare the land of 1000 sq. metres of each of the petitioners is outside the purview of the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976; todirect the 3rd respondent for sanction of the layout and also to direct the 4th respondent for entertaining the registration of the sale-deeds.3. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows:The petitioners purchased each an extent of 10 guntas or 1000 sq. metres from the pattadars of the land in S.No.79 part of Madapur village, Strilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District. At the time of purchase, the land in question was an agricultural l...
State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor Vs. Prakash Kumar Sahu @ Prak ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)848; 1999(1)ALT798; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)84
ORDERBilal Nazki, J. 1. Filing of suit Certified Copy of Judgment in Crl.M.P. No. 1313/98, dated 7-9-1998 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada - Dispensed with.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. The accused was granted bail by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada on 11-9-1998. While granting bail, he directed that the accused shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two local sureties for like amount. An application has been made under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking modification of these conditions. During the pendency of this application, the learned Public Prosecutor also moved an application seeking cancellation of the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge on 11-9-1998. This is a matter concerning theft of a Crown of a temple which is sensitive in its nature. Besides, the Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner belongs to Madhya Pradesh and he is an habitual of...
Veeragouni Rambabu (Died) Rep. by L.Rs. Vs. Thumati Seetharamachary an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALT376
ORDERSyed Saadatulla Hussaini, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. There is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the Court below in dismissing the application of the petitioners for condoning the inordinate delay of three years for coming on record as legal representatives.3. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1977) 7 SCC 556, wherein their Lordships have held that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds and equity cannot be the basis for extending the period of limitation.4. Keeping in view the Apex Court judgment in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr., (1977) 7 SCC 556 there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below. The CRP lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. ...
Bulasala Subbaravamma (Died) Per Lrs. Vs. Saparam Venkata Subbamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD46; 1999(1)ALT518
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-1-1989 passed in AS No.8 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chirala, reversing the judgment and decree dated 7-12-1978 passed in OS No.664 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif, Chirala.2. The appellants herein are the original plaintiff Bulasala Subba Ravamma and her legal heirs who have been added subsequent to her death and the respondent herein is the defendant in the said suit OS No.664 of 1974. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred as they are arrayed in the suit.3. The plaintiff filed the said suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the open site shown as A, B, C, D and marked as plot No.2 in the plaint plan situated in front of her house marked as plot No.1 in the plaint plan. The defendant is the owner of the house marked as plot No.3 and also the open site which is in front of her house (Pl...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Coromandal Fertilizers
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR417(AP)
S. V. Maruthi, J.1. The following questions are referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that for the purposes of computing disallowance under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, commission paid to the managing director cannot be taken into account ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that allowance of expenditure has to be limited under Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules with reference to the whole of the previous year and not by splitting up each trip of an employee ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,29,306 spent by the assessee towards fees to Tata Sons Limited constitutes business expenditure deductible from its business income ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances o...
E. Krishna Reddy Vs. Fisheries Development Officer (Extension), Buchir ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD341; 1998(6)ALT185
ORDER1. Rule nisi. Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries took notice for respondents. The writ petition was heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The 1st respondent issued notification dated 1-9-1998 in RC No.7 of 1998 proposing to hold public auction of lease hold rights of fishing in Kanigiri - Duvvuru reservoir, Bucchireddypalem, Sangani Mandal, Nellorc District, for the Fasli year 1408 ending on 30-6-1998. The auction was held on 16-9-1998 at 2 p.m. in the office of the 2nd respondent at Nellore. In pursuance of the aforesaid notification, six persons offered their bids; the petitioner offered highest bid of Rs.5.75 lakhs. The 1st respondent declared the petitioner as the highest bidder in the auction and called upon the petitioner to deposit 1/4th of the bid amount in terms of Condition No.5. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1.44 lakhs on the same day. According to the petitioner, even as he was making preparation for the balance amount a...
Y.C. Seshaiah and Others Vs. Government of Andhra and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD338; 1999(1)ALT25
ORDER1. Rule Nisi.2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue wirt petition was heard finally and disposed of at the admission stage.3. Notification dated 12-9-1998 issued by the State Government acting under subsections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the A.P. District (Formation) Act, 1974 including Itugullapadu, Savisettipalle and Ramapadu villages into proposed New Revenue Mandal 'Sri Avadhula Kasinayana Mandal' is called in question in this writ petition.4. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Government, before issuing the impugned notification, has not considered the objections filed by the petitioners to the draft notification dated 27-12-1997. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is also contended that inclusion of Itugullapadu, Savisettipalle and Ramapadu villages into proposed New Revenue Mandal 'Sri Avadhuta Kasinayana Mandal'' is neither feasible nor ne...
Commissioner, Endowments Department and Others Vs. Vittal Rao and Othe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD574; 1998(6)ALT355
ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, CJ1. Section 96(3) has been engrafted on to the Code of Civil Procedure in order to avoid repetition of adjudicatory process between the parties in the event of there being a decree passed by consent of the parties. It is on this perspective, the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Dora v. Annamanaidu. : [1974]2SCR655 seem to be very apposite. In paragraph 59 of the report, the Supreme Court observed:'Be that as it may, the bar to an appeal against a consent decree, in sub-section (3) of Section 96 of the Code is based on the broad principle of estoppel. It presupposes that the parties to an action can, expressly or by implication, waive or forego their right of appeal by any lawful agreement or compromise, or even by conduct. Therefore, as soon as the parties made the agreement to abide by the determination in the appeal (AS.668) and induced the Court to pass a decree in terms of that agreement, the principle of estoppel underlying Sectio...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Lateefunnisa Begum and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)ALT208
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is disposed of finally at admission stage.2. The appeal is filed against the orders of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. Judge, Adilabad dated 25-12-1997 in O.P. No. 388 of 1995. The accident took place on 28-6-1995 in which one Mohd. Affan died. Consequently, the legal representatives and the dependants of the said deceased filed O.P. No. 388 of 1995 claiming compensation for a total sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal:(1) Whether the deceased Md. Affan died in the accident occurred on 28-6-1995 due to rash and negligent driving with vehicle bearing No. KA 01/7558 by its driver?(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?(3) To what relief?The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and the material placed before the Court held that the accident arose on account of the rash and neglige...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »