Andhra Pradesh Court October 1998 Judgments

Clouth Gummiwerke Aktiengesellschaft and Mannesmann Demag Lauchhammer ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1999]238ITR861(AP)

S.V. Maruthi, J. 1. These two RCs are disposed of by a common order as the questions referred are similar.2. The following questions are referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court in R. C. No. 71 of 1990 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rs. 1,19,459 was fees for technical services and would be deemed as income under Section 9(1)(vii) ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that only Rs. 1,19,459 could be treated as taxable and not Rs. 1,76,116 which figure includes the incidental expenses in bringing the engineer to India ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the grossing up of income by calculating tax on tax until zero difference is arrived at and not merely restricting the grossing up of income to the tax on the net amount and no further ?' 3. In R.C. No. 149 of 1990, the...

Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by G.M., S.C. Railway and anr. Vs. V. Ramana ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALT215

ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J.1. In this review petition, the principal contention raised by the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition is that the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents had erroneously conceded that none of the claims as lodged by the applicant can be termed as excepted matters, though, there is a specific mention in the counter-affidavit, in particular, paragraph 9 thereof, recording therein that items 4 and 5 ought to be treated as excepted matters. It has been contended that in terms of the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Act of 1996, the Arbitrator has the jurisdiction to even decide the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Tribunal. As such, error or omission on the part of an Advocate as regards exclusion as excepted matters ought not to be permitted in order to subserve the ends of justice.2. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent, however, in no uncertain terms contended that as a matter of fact, by reason o...

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Karimnagar Vs. Suthari Lingaiah and O ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD137; 1999(4)ALT87

1. This appeal is directed against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the MV OP No.473 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Karimnagar. The appellant is theInsurance Company which insured the vehicle involved in the accident. Respondents 1 to 5 are the petitioners-claimants before the Tribunal and Respondents 6 and 7 are owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.91,000/- for the death of the deceased-Suthari Chilakamma, who is the wife of Petitioner No. 1 and the mother of Petitioners Nos.2 to 5 in the Tribunal.2. The appeal is based on a simple question, namely whether the Tribunal was in error in awarding compensation in excess of that claimed in the petition.3. A perusal of the judgment and Award under appeal would show that the petitioners claimed compensation for a sum of Rs.70,000/-. But, surprisingly, the Award has been passed granting compensation in a s...

S. Nanda Gopal Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD681A; 1999(1)ALT268

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J. 1. This writ petition raises the question of noise pollution by cinema theatres. The granting of licence to exhibit films is covered by the Cinematograph Act and the Rules made thereunder. Report filed by the Junior Scientific Officer, Board Laboratory, A.P. Pollution Control Board, Hyderabad, gives specific frequency of voice, but we are at a loss to find any restriction with regard to maximum permissible limit of Digital Bassuround System (DBS) with regard to noise which in fact should be essential condition while granting permission to exhibit films. The A.P. Pollution Control Board is, therefore, directed to file this report before the Director-General of Police and Commissioner of Police and also the Collectors of all the Districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh, including the Secretary to Home Department. On receipt of such report, the said authorities shall see that the maximum permissible limit of frequency of voice (DBS) shall be incorporated as one...

M/S. Mahaveer Investments Vs. M/S. Professional Couriers and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. Heard Mr. P. Ramshah, Counsel for the complainant and Mr. V.V. Sharma who represented Mr. M. Lakshmana Sharma, Counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2. Counter on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 was filed on 8.4.1996 itself. Affidavit of the 2nd opposite party dated 6.4.1996 was also filed alongwith the xerox copies of documents sought to be relied upon. On behalf of the complainant its proprietor Mr. Bhavarlal M. Jain filed reply affidavit dated 14.4.1997 but no documents whatsoever have been filed to substantiate the case of the complainant. 2. The complainant has filed this complaint complaining that on 21.5.1994 it entrusted to the 1st opposite party a parcel containing several valuable share certificates and transfer forms duly signed by the holders of the shares, to be delivered to M/s. Ramanlal D. Shah, First Floor, Room No. 123, Jeejibai Tower, Dalai Street, Fort, Bombay-400023. List of the various share certificates said to have been sent in ...

Vuppala Nagalingam and Sons, Suryapet Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD6

ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J. 1. At the instance of the assessce, the following two questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court:1. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs.25,000/- and Rs. 18,950/-should be added under Section 40(b) of the Act, for the assessment year 1980-81. 2. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs.4.296/- and representing interest paid on H.U.F. credit balances should be added under the provisions of the Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1980-81.' 2. The facts in brief arc as follows:The assessee is a firm dealing in fertilisers, pesticides, insecticides, oil engines etc., besides doing money-lending business. The assessee paid salary of Rs.25,000/- to the partners and credited interest to the partner's account on salary accumulations. The partners are partners in the ...

B. Sudhakar Reddy and ors. Vs. Engineer-in-chief, Public Health, Govt. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD326

ORDER1. The three petitioners are contractors. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in awarding the contract of executing the work relating to laying of sub and main branches and lateral sewers in Tirupathi town in favour of the third respondent this writ petition is filed. It appears, initially a tender notification for the said purpose was issued on 12-12-1997. After the receipt of the tenders from the various tenderers, the tender documents were burnt down - the reasons and details of the same are not relevant for the purpose of this case. Pursuant to such a mishap, a fresh notification, dated 17-1-1998 was issued. Under the said notification, tenders were invited for executing all packages of work indicated in the tender notification. It is an admitted case that the tenders are governed by a process called as 'Post qualification procedure'. Along with the bid documents, certain book-lets containing the various conditions and stipulations dealing with the tender proces...

Viraj Constructions Vs. P. Pandu

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD563; 1998(6)ALT262

ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration.2. This revision is directed against the order passed by the lower Court returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.3. The suit is filed for a permanent injunction in respect of Ac.3-27 guntas of land situated in Begumpet, Hyderabad. The plaintiff valued the relief claimed under Section 26(c) of the Andhra Pradcsh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), at Rs.10,000/- and paid Court-fees thereon. The lower Court was of the opinion that the relief has to be valued at more than Rs.1 lakh and so, it returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.4. Under Section 26(c) of the Act, the fees shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher. Undoubtedly, the Court has power to revise the valuation made by the plaintiff and value the relief as...

Vuppala Nagalingam and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1999]237ITR16(AP)

S.V. Marutih, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following twoquestions have been referred for .the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 18,950 should be added under Section 40(b) of the Act for the assessment year 1980-81 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 4,296 and representing interest paid on Hindu undivided family credit balances should be added under the provisions of Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1980-81 ?' 2. The facts in brief are as follows : The assessee is a firm dealing in fertilisers, pesticides, insecticides, oil engines, etc., besides doing money-lending business. The assessee paid salary of Rs. 25,000 to the partners and credited interest to the partners' account on salary accumulations. The partners are ...

Savitri Bai Vs. Om Prakash Gupta and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD1; 1998(6)ALT694

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the concurrent judgment of the trial Court, which was affirmed by the learned single Judge and emanates from the decree for specific performance granted by the trial Court.2. The appellant before us is the 2nd defendant in the suit, who claims to be the successor of the suit schedule property exclusively by virtue of Ex.B4 Will said to have been executed by her late mother - HariPyari Bai. The decree for specific performance has been granted against the 1st defendant - the brother of the appellant - to the extent of his share. But, the appellant is claiming the entire suit schedule property as her own on the basis of the Will mentioned supra. The trial Court dis-believed the Will and the appreciation of evidence and reasons assigned therefor are cogent and based on the material on record. Again, the same was re-appreciated by the learned single Judge. There is no point of law to be decided in this Letters Pate...