Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(1)ALD(Cri)496; 1998CriLJ1856
ORDERY.V. Narayana, J.1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening 'rowdy sheet' against the petitioners as illegal and unconstitutional.2. The case of the petitioners is that they are eking out their livelihood by doing petty business. While so, in the year 1990, a case was registered against them for allegedly abducting a boy viz., K. Mysaiah for not repaying the amount due towards cycle hire charges and the cost of the cycle, in Crime No. 29/1990 under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. In that case, the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 8 respectively. Subsequently, the petitioners along with other co-accused were tried by the Court of Sessions and by judgment dated 10-11-1993, the Court acquitted the petitioners of the charges levelled against them in the said crime. Basing upon the said registration of crime against the petitioners, The Station House Officer, Shah Inayath Gunj P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD752; 1998(2)ALT629
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by ten students for a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in directing the petitioners to once again study the courses of Diploma in Mechanical, Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Civil Engineering, for which courses, the petitioners have already written examinations, which were held on 7-4-1997 and as such, the action of the respondents is violative of principle of 'Promissory Estoppel' and consequently direct the respondents to declare the results of the petitioners examinations that were held in the month of April, 1997.2. In the affidavit in support of the writ petition, it is elaborated that petitioner Nos. 1,2,3,4,5,8 and 10 were the students of final year polytechnic and the petitioner Nos.6.7 and 9 were the students of second year polytechnic and they were all the students of Government Model Residential Polytechnic, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District. It is further stated in the affidavit that there was shortage in att...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD736; 1998(2)ALT332
ORDER1. The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in cancelling the tender of the petitioner by impugned proceedings No.P3/122(16)/97-RM, dated 2-12-1997 is arbitrary, mala fide, illegal and unsustainable and for a consequential direction to the respondent to accept the tender of the petitioner in respect of Canteen in New Bus Station, Siddipet of A.RS.RT.C. and award contract in his favour.2. The relevant facts which are necessary to be noticed for the purpose of disposal of this case are stated briefly as under:The respondent issued a Notification on 9-6-1997 calling for tenders from the public at large to grant licence in respect of canteen situated in New Bus Station, Siddipet. In response to this Notification, the petitioner and one A. Bose Babu submitted their tenders. According to the petitioner, the tender committee on 17-06-1997 opened the tenders and found that the offer made by the petitioner was the highest. At this stage, it ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD774
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J1. ThisCivil Miscellaneous Appeal by the petitioner-plaintiff is against the orders in I. A.No. 1396 of 1996 in O.S.No.1474 of 1996 dated 20-12-1996. The appellant herein filed O.S.No.1474 for declaration and possession of the plaint Schedule I property, portion of the said house against Defendants 1,3 and 4 and for relief of ownership in respect of Schedule HI property against Defendants I to 3. However, the appellant herein prayed for relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the ground portion of the said house.2. The petitioner-plaintiff claims to be the true and absolute owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same for valuable consideration under registered sale deed dated 20-1-1975. Improvements are stated to have been made by her spending huge amounts. The first defendant is her husband and he was looking after (he suit schedule properly as her trustee. It is also averred that the appellant and the first respondent and their childre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD816; 1998(2)ALT803
ORDERP. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. Defendants are appellants. One Dr.E.N. Das, along with his two sons, who are Appellants 1 and 2 herein entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff- first respondent herein, on 4-7-1973, for sale of site admeasuring 1,718 sq. yards, together with building bearing Municipal No.20-E-2 situate at St John's Road, Secunderabad for a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh. Plaintiff paid asum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of advance. As per the terms of the agreement, defendants have to execute and register sale deed on or before 4-1-1974 after receiving the balance of sale consideration- It is made clear in the agreement that the defendants have executed a registered sale deed in favour of the fourth defendant on 22-4-1958, who has agreed to reconvey the said property within certain period on compliance of certain conditions, and that she has no objection to convey the property in favour of purchaser, provided the vendors first comply with the conditions for reconveyance of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(3)ALD39
ORDERP. Ramakrtshnam Raju, J 1. This is an application filed by the wife who is respondent in the main C.M.A. (seeking for a direction to pay a monthly maintenance pending appeal and also the expenses for the proceedings. The respondent's husband filed the O.P. in the lower Court for a decree of divorce against the petitioner. During the pendency of the said application, the petitioner claimed maintenance for herself and also for her minor sen together with expenses for the litigation. The petitioner was granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,500/-while the minor son was granted a sum of Rs.500/- towards maintenance apart from a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards legal expenses pending disposal of the O.P. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondent in the High Court. Later .the O.P. was also dismissed, hence the respondent filed the appeal which is pending.2. As the order of maintenance to both the petitioner and her minor son was well as providing logal expenses was confirme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(4)ALD297; 1998(4)ALT251
1. Heard both theCounsel.2. This C.R.P. arises on the executionside. The petitioner is the decree-holder in O.S.No.227/1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Nalgonda. It is submitted that the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.10,493/-against the defendant basing on promissory note. The suit was decreed ex parts on 29-6-1994. The respondent filed an application to set aside the exparte decree in IANo.582/95, but the same was dismissed. Later, the first respondent preferred I.A.No.533/1995 in thesuit under Section 47 C.P.C. on the ground that the decree should be set aside as the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation.3. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the sole ground set up before the executing Court was that the suit claim was barred by limitation.4. The lower Court after considering the arguments adduced by both the sides held that the decree in O.S.No.227/93 is illegal, void ab initio and cannot be executed on the ground that the claim of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1999)151CTR(AP)207; [1998]232ITR776(AP)
T.N.C. Rangarajan, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is correct in law to make a separate addition of Rs. 63,859 representing the interest and remuneration paid to partners, to the income already estimated and assessed from contracts ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm having contract business in engineering works and some of its work was done through Sub-contractors. For the assessment year 1981-82, the gross contract receipts came toRs. 27,20,083 and the net income shown in the profit and loss account was Rs. 1,24,830. The Income-tax Officer rejected the books and applying the proviso to Section 145, estimated the income at Rs. 2,50,000. The Commissioner of Income-tax considered that this estimate was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and added a sum of Rs. 63,859 under Section 263, which was shown as interest and salary paid to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1.This is an appeal preferred by the Director of Insurance Government of Andhra Pradesh, against the order dated 19.9.1997 of the Hyderabad District Forum in O.P. No. 1338 of 1996 allowing the claim of Smt. G. Vijaya Lakshmi, the widow of Sri A. Harikrishna who died in harness on 28.1.1989. The District Forum by its order directed the appellant, who was the opposite party in that O.P., to pay the insurance amount on the basis of the enhanced rate of Rs. 50 /- that was being deducted every month from the salary of the deceased Sri A. Harikrishna from June, 1991 to April, 1996 regularly as per G.O. Ms. No. 43 Finance and Planning (F.W. Admn. Ill) Department dated 28.1.1989. 2. The only defence set up by the appellant against the claim of the complainant was that the requisite proposal form was not submitted to the A.P.G.L.I. Department (Andhra Pradesh Government Life Insurance Department i.e.to the Director of Insurance, the appellant herein) by the office in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD712; 1998(3)ALT228
ORDER1. The petitioner was working as Assistant General Manager with the respondent No.l and after completing total service of forty years he was due for superannuation. He retired from service on 31-10-1988. He was given a letter by the General Manager of the respondent No.l on 30-9-1988 that he would retire from service of the first respondent, at the end of October 1988 due to attainment of age of superannuation. Accordingly, the petitionerwas permitted to retire on 31 -10-198 8 by the respondent No. 1 and he was relieved on that day by the order of the General Manager of the first respondent dated 31-10-1988. In spite of the fact that the petitioner retired from service his provident fund and gratuity were not paid to him. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent No. 1 for claiming such gratuity and provident fund. The provident fund amount was subsequently paid to him but the gratuity amount continued to be withheld. On petitioner's enquiry the General Manager of the...
Tag this Judgment!