Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
G.M. Uruj Vs. Anwar Hussain
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1998
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...
Eswara Laminates (P) Ltd., Pedda Autpally and ors. Vs. Singareni Colli ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1998
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...
K. Chinna Rajanna Vs. Vice-chancellor, Osmania University, Hyderabad a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1998
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...
R. Nagaraju Vs. Managing Director, A.P. State Ware Housing Corpn., Hyd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-1998
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...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Vijayalakshmi Mineral and Trading C ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-1998
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...
Pathivada Narayanswamy Vs. Gaulocha Pannalal and Kenguva Appalanarasai ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD80; 1998(2)ALT718
1. This second appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment in A.S. No-7/1996 on the file of the District Court, Vizianagaram. 2. The 1st respondent-plaintiff filed a suit O.S.No.249/1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Vizianagaram, on the foot of a promissory note-Ex.A-1 for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,462/- against defendants 1 and 2. It is the claim of the plaintiff that D-1 scribed the said promissory note while both the defendants signed it. While so, the 1st defendant set himself ex parte. The 2nd defendant contested the suit. His contention is that plaintiff and D-1 colluded together and brought into existence Ex.A-1 and that he never executed Ex,A-1. On the basis of the above pleadings, evidence was adduced by both parties. However, in spite of the allegation that Ex. A-1 is a forged document, no steps were taken by either party to send the same for expert opinion. Thereafter, on a consideration of the evidence, the trial court held that the plainti...
Gubbala Nageswara Rao and Others Vs. State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD78; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)14
ORDER1. This criminal revision case is sought to be filed by the accused in CC No. 164 of 1994 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, questioning the orders passed by the Magistrate on 17-9-1997 dismissing the petition in Crl. MP No.2654 of 1997 in the above said CC.164 of 1994.2. The police filed charge-sheet against the present petitioners who are accused in Crime No.2 of 1994 of Penugonda Police Station for the offence under Sections 500 and 506(1) read with Section 34 IPC. The said case was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the de facto-complainant alleging that as herself and LWs.2 to 6 did not oblige the accused in giving money for performing pujas, they were declared as out-caste and were ex-communicated by the accused and thereby the accused are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 506(1) IPC read with Section 34 IPC.3. During the pendency of the trial of the case, LW1 who is the de facto-complainant compoun...
D. Sreeramulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
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...
Annapu Reddy Rama Rao Vs. Gram Panchayat, Avanigadda, Krishna Dist. an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD547; 1998(4)ALT656
ORDER1. Admittedly, the petitioner is only a lessee to collect the fees fixed by the Gram Panchayat on the goods that were brought to the market yard within the Gram Panchayat by participating in the auction for the year 1996-97, After expiry of the lease period, when the Gram Panchayat tried to auction the lease-hold rights, the petitioner filed this writ petition by contending that he is entitled to continue as lessee, by paying 15% fee over and above the fee that was paid by him as contemplated under Section 106 of the Gram Panchayat Act.2. I have gone through the relevant provisions. The licence held by the petitioners has nothing to do with the sale of goods that are being brought into the market yard. He is only collecting the fees prescribed by the Gram Panchayat on the articles brought to sale to the market year as a lessee of the Gram Panchayat, to collect the fees. Hence, Section 106 of the Act cannot be pressed into service. Somehow the petitioner got the petition not only a...
Khair Mohd. Khan Vs. S. Eramani and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
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...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »