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.
Mittakola Venkata Rama Rao Vs. Sarpanch, Grampanchayath, Mahaboobabad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD343; 1998(6)ALT440
ORDER1. Heard.2. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents regarding proposed construction of the commercial complex in Gandhi Park, situated at Mahaboobabad, Warangal District as illegal, void and pass such other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.3. This is a public interest litigation. The petitioner is a practising advocate atMahaboobabad. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, he stated that Maliaboobabad is a revenue divisional centre in Warangal District, having Subordinate Court, Degree College and other educational institutions. The population of Mahaboobabad is 31,184 as per 1990-91 population census. He further stated that it is the centre of Railway Station, having grain market and bus depot and there are nearly 10,000 floating population every day in the town for various purposes and the town has been expanding due to esta...
Annapurna Industries Rice Mill Vs. Superintending Engineer, Apseb, Hyd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD182; 1998(6)ALT588
ORDER1. Rule nisi. The learned standing Counsel for the APSEB Sri J. Siddaiah took notice for the respondent. The writ petition itself was heard finally and disposed of with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Against the impugned order, a statutory appeal lies to the Chief Engineer. I do not find any extraordinary circumstance or situation which could justify the petitioner to circumvent the statutory remedy and rush to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, having perused the affidavit averments, I find that in order to grant the relief to the petitioner, investigation of disputed facts becomes necessary. Normally, High Court does not take up investigation of disputed facts in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless it is satisfied that there is no alternative adjudicatory forum or quasi-judicial Tribunal to take up such investigation. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that if th...
A. Rafghunandan Vs. Assistant Secretary, Gudi Malkapur, Hyderabad and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD340; 2000(1)ALT244
ORDER1. Writ petition is disposed of after hearing the learned Counsel for both sides. The contention of the learned Government Pleader for Transport is that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy available under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') before approaching this Court and therefore, as alternate remedy exists, the petitioner should not be given any relief. On the other hand, the leanted Counsel for the petitioner says that Section 207(2) of the Act is not obligatory. It is only directory and therefore, he can come to this Court. This argument has not much merit. When a remedy is provided by the Statute whether it is Mandatory orOptional, the Petitioner should first exhaust that remedy if he wants the relief.2. Second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case Section 207(2) of the Act does not apply because the violation alleged is only of breach of conditions of permit. There is...
R.S. Manyam Vs. Vice-chairman and Managing Director, Apsrtc, Hyderabad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD438; 2001(2)ALT25
ORDER1. The writ petition was heard filially with consent of learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has served as driver in the establishment of second respondent. He was issued with charge-sheet dated 16-7-1998 alleging misconduct against him within the meaning of Regulation 28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 (for short 'the Conduct Regulations'). On the same day the petitioner was placed under suspension by a separate order pending enquiry. The petitioner has assailed the validity of the charge-sheet as well as the office order placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry.3. In response to Rule Nisi and as directed by this Court, Sri A. V. Sivaiah, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC made available to the Court the records of the impugned proceedings.4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC.5. Sri S. Sriram, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed two contentions before the Court for cons...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bellien Michael Andresmant and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR479(AP)
S.V. Maruthi, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions were referred for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the living allowance granted to defray the expenses of purely personal nature is exempt under Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the living allowance is a special allowance specifically granted to meet expenses incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the performance of the duties of an office or employment ?'2. The facts, in brief, are as follows : The assessment year involved is 1978-79. The assessees, who are five in number, are foreign technicians. They were employed by Messrs. L' Air Liquide of France (hereinafter called as 'foreign company'). Messrs. Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Ltd., Visakha...
V. Vengama Naidu and ors. Vs. Sree Bugga Mutt, Religious Institution
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT182
A. Hanumanthu, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12-4-1989 passed in A.S. No. 61/80 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati, reversing the judgment and decree dated 18-3-1980 passed in O.S. No. 466/73 on the file of the Additional District Munsif at Tirupati. The appellants herein are the respondents 8, 9, 10, 12 & 13 in A.S. No. 61/80. They are not the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 466/1973, but they were added as parties to the appeal A.S. No. 61/1980 as per the orders of the first appellate Court in C.M.P. No. 194/1983 dated 11-7-1986. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 466/1973. For the sake of convenience the parties are being referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.2. The respondent-plaintiff filed the said suit against the first defendant Chennamchetty Venkatasubbaiah Chetty and the 2nd defendant Chennamchetty Nagarathnam Chetty who is the son of the 1st defendant. After the death of the 1st defe...
Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. Ii, Hyderabad Vs. Dhanpal Jagadishwar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD461; 1999(1)ALT177; [1999]237ITR354(AP)
ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J 1. The questions referred by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this Court are as follows:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the status of the assessee is minor HUF and not individual for the assessment years 1973-74,1974-75 and 1975-76?; (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the income of the minor sons who are admitted to the benefits of the partnership in a firm in which assessee is also a partner could not be included in the individual assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76?; (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that there was no justification for the Income Tax Officer to assess the income of the assessee and his minor sons in his assessment as an individual under Section 148 f...
Tirumala Coffee and Tea Vendors Association Vs. Ttd, Tirupathi and Ano ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD274; 1999(1)ALT388
ORDER1. The case of the petitioner-Association is that its members are residing along with their families at Tirumala since more than 30 years and they have been seeking sitting licences for vending tea and coffee but the respondent has not considered the same. It is asserted that such an inaction on the part of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.2. The respondent through its Executive Officer filed counter-affidavit. It is stated that the members of the petitioners, Association moves from one place to another among choultries and cottages in the ear-marked areas carrying kettles with them and catering to the needs of visiting pilgrims. It is asserted that the case of the petitioner-Association is different from the persons who sell bangles, fancy articles, books, etc. The contention that they were granted licences in the year 1976 and renewed from time to time is not admittedand it is also denied that the respondent was never approached by the Association for su...
Adusumilli Venkateshwara Rao and Others Vs. Government of Andhra Prade ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD464
ORDER1. Common questions of law arise in all these Writ Petitions. Hence, they are all disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are the contractors for various works floated by the Government and Local Bodies.Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules') every person using minor mineral is required to pay the prescribed seigniorage fee on the mineral used and in default he is liable to pay penalty of five times the seigniorage fee. They arc required to use minor minerals like concrete, sand etc. Earlier, as per the then existing procedure, the seigniorage fee in respect of the minerals used by the contractors was being deducted by the Department from the bills of the respective contractors. But, however, the Government issued Memo No.49/B.n (2)/91-2, dated 4-4-1991 incorporating the following Clause:'The contractor should produce documentary evidence for having paid the seigniorage fee to t...
Chief General Manager-cum-displinary Authority, State Bank of India Vs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD269; 1998(6)ALT1
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. The respondent- writ petitioner who was working in the State Bank of India as Cash Officer (Junior Manager, Scale-I, Supervisory Cadre) was removed from service by an order dated 27-4-1989 passed by the first appellant herein. Appeal to the second appellant and the review filed before the third appellant were rejected by respective speaking orders. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed in April, 1991 questioning the order of removal as confirmed by the appellate and reviewing authorities. The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition on three grounds: 1) Charge No.(b) is not established, the finding of the Enquiry Officer being perverse; 2) Allegations in charge No.(c) do not constitute mis-conduct under the Disciplinary Rules governing the Award Staff; and 3) Charges (a) and (d) 'are incompetentand without jurisdiction' in the sense that the procedure obtaining under the SBI Supervisory Staff Service Rules was applied whereas the procedure gover...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »