Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(3)ALD588; 1998(2)ALT793
ORDER1. The petitioner is the plaintiff. In the suit for damages one Sri Mir Simjuddin sought to file a certified copy of the document under which he was said to have been appointed as the lawful General Power of Attorney by the defendant in the suit. He filed an application Under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice requesting permission of the Court to act, conduct and defend the defendant in the suit. The Court below allowed the application. Questioning the same this revision petition is filed.2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the identity of the person who is said to have executed the said document was in doubt, the Court below ought not to have allowed the application. In support of his contention he has taken me through an order of this Court passed in C.R.P. No.48/96. Learned Counsel for the respondent however submits that there was a presumption under law when once a notarised power of attorney is produced it is presumed to be true and unless...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(3)ALD731; 1998(3)ALT785
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. Clause 10 of the price Notification No.3/96-97 dated 14-3-1997 issued by the respondent-Company has been challenged in this batch ofwrit petitions. Most of the petitioners are running industries manufacturing Ceramics, Chemicals, Tiles & Bricks, Lime etc., who claim to be drawing coal from Singareni Collieries & Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SCL) for utilising the same in their industries. Para 10 of the Notification which is assailed in these batch of writ petitions is as follows:'Any linked customers who are drawing B, C and D grades of coal arc required to pay 20% additional price over and above the notified prices.'2. In the earlier part of the notification, the prices of various grades and varieties of coal arc specified. The petitioners seek a direction that the SCL should be restrained from charging 20% additional price under Clause 10 of the Notification dated 14-3-1997. The said Clause is challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(3)ALD753; 1998(3)ALT485
ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, C. J. 1. The most accepted methodology of a Governmental working is fairness in the event Governmental action lacks the element of fairness, it will be a plain exercise of judicial power to rise up to the occasion and grant relief to the persons seeking such a relief. Judicial redress ought not to be discarded but ought to be allowed if the merits of the matter so warrant. Public administrative actions are subject to judicial scrutiny, but that does not, however, mean and imply that every public action shall have to be set at naught by the Law Courts.2. It is now a well settled principle that law Courts while dealing with an administrative action must act as a Public Law Court having due regard to the needs of the Public administration and the observation of Sir John Donaldson in R. v. Monopolies Commission ex parte Argyll. Group, (1986) 1 WLR 763, lend support to such a statement of law. Sir John Donaldson was pleased to record that 'good public administra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(3)ALD579; 1998(4)ALT657; [1998(80)FLR875]
ORDER1. The petitioner, an employee of the respondent-Ware Housing Corporation, retired from service as warehousing Manager Gradc-I on 30-6-1996. On the date of his retirement he completed 30 years of service. The respondent Corporation under Section 42 of the Warehousing Corporation Act 1962 and with prior sanction of the Government framed Regulations called A.P. State Warehousing Corporation Employees Gratuity Fund Regulations, 1974 (hereafter called 'the Regulations')- The Regulations came into force w.e.f. 1-4-1971. Admittedly the petitioner is governed by the said Regulations. As per Regulation 4 of the Regulations, the petitioner was entitled for the gratuity equivalent to 15 days pay of the employee for each completed year of qualifying service, subject to a maximum of 20 months pay. The petitioner's pay at the time of retirement, was Rs. 6150/-in addition he was drawing a total pay including D.A. Rs- 8,114/-. As per Regulations, pay + D.A. will be taken into consideration for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1999)151CTR(AP)166
Ms. S.V. Maruthi, J.This application is filed under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the revenue.2. The assessee-firm was dealing in mining of barytes and exports the same and sells the barytes within the country. The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1987-88 belatedly under section 139(10) of the Act. The assessee filed the return for the assessment year 1988-89 on 29-7-1988, declaring loss of Rs. 4,75,879 and on 3-8-1989, the assessee filed a revised return declaring loss of Rs. 7,41,330. While completing the assessment, the assessing officer has rejected the claim of the assessee for carrying forward the depreciation relating to the assessment year 1987-88 on the ground that the return for the assessment year 1987-88 was non est. Therefore, the depreciation allowance for 1987-88 has not been quantified. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissione (A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(4)ALD7; [1998]232ITR109(AP)
ORDERT.N.C. Rangarajan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Ratnakar and Sri P.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. These three references raise identicalquestions and can be disposed of by a common order.3. The assesses is a Co-operative Society engaged in the business of purchasing provisions and other goods which are sold mostly to the members of the Society. It also cams interest and other miscellaneous income. At the end of the year after ascertaining the profits, the Society declared rebate to the members. 4. For the assessment year 1980-81 the Income-Tax Officer allowed the rebate distributed to the members as a deduction in computing the assessee's total income. Subsequently he found that the assessment for the assessment year 1981-82 had been revised by the Commissioner of Income-Tax. He accordingly treated that as an information and re-opened the assessment to disallow the rebate. This was carried on appeal and the Appellate Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(4)ALD59; 1998(4)ALT66
1. This appeal is directed against flie Judgment and Decree dated 29-9-1981 rendered in O.S.No.596 of 1979 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the Suit. Defendant No. 1, who had suffered the decree for declaration and consequential injunction, has preferred this appeal.3. The subject-matter of the suit is a house, which was constructed by hitherto theCity Improvement Board, which was succeeded by the present Andhra Pradesh Housing Board. Defendant No.2 was the allottee of the suit house. The allotment was by way of hire purchase agreement and then on payment of the full instalments, the house was to be registered in his name. In fact, that is the normal scheme of the A.P. Housing Board or even the former City Improvement Board. Defendant No.2 had styled himself as the owner of the suit house and sold the same to the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 30-8-1968 for a valuable consideration. Later on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1998)148CTR(AP)91
ORDERT.N.C. Rangarajan, J.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Ratnakar & Sri P.S.R. Chandra Murthy,learned counsel for the respondents.These three references raise identical questions and can be disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the business of purchasing provisions and other goods which are sold mostly to the members of the society. It also earns interest and other miscellaneous income. At the end of the year after ascertaining the profits, the society declared rebate to the members.For the assessment year 1980-81 the Income Tax Officer allowed the rebate distributed to the members as a deduction in computing the assessees total income. Subsequently, he found that the assessment for the assessment year 1981-82 had been revised by the Commissioner. He accordingly treated that as an information and re-opened the assessment to disallow the rebate. This was carried on appeal and the Tribunal following its own orders for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(3)ALD236; 1998(4)ALT660
ORDER1. Questioning the order dated 3-5-1997 passed by the fourth respondent in Memo No. D.Dis.No. 4068/96-A-III, whereunder the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by relaxing the age was rejected, the present writ petition is filed.2. Though the writ petition is coming up for admission from the last week of December 1997, the respondents did not choose to file any counter in this case. On 9-3-1998 I passed the following order :'Print the name of Sri K. Raghavendra Reddy for R-4 and Post on 23-03-1998, in the mean time counter, if any.'Again when the case is listed today, a request was made on behalf of respondents to adjourn the case to enable them to file counter. I have gone through the orders passed by the respondents. By filing a counter the case of the respondents cannot be improved, as the order rejecting the case of the petitioner is a self explanatory one. Hence, the request is rejected.3. Now, I proceed to examine the merits of the case. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(4)ALD101; 1998(3)ALT775
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J1. In these writ petitions filed by High Tension Electricity Consumers, there are two questions which have to be answered by this Full Bench. They are :--(1) When the electricity charges are permitted to be paid in instalments, whether in addition to interest under para 34 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, additional charge (also called as 'surcharge') as contemplated by para 32.2.1 is payable simultaneously on the outstanding amount ?(2) How and in what manner the interest has to be calculated under para 34 i.e., whether the entire amount payable on the date of grant of instalments should bear interest and surcharge at the prescribed rate till the last date of payment or whether it should be calculated with reference to the remaining amount payable afterdeducting the amount paid in instalments from time to time ?2. As the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench felt that the view taken by the same Division Bench in W.P.No.8287 of 1988 is open to...
Tag this Judgment!