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.
Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. S. Padmavathi and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD10
ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge wherein the learned single Judge pleased to observe as follows:'On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Joint-Collector cannot exercise the power of revision under Section-9 while the appeal is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, the revision is not maintainable while the appeal is pending. Hence, the impugned order of the Joint Collector dated 31-3-1997 is set aside as not maintainable.''There is obviously some factual misapprehension in the matter in issue. The records depict that there was an appeal in terms of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971. During the pendency of the appeal, in order to expedite hearing and disposal of the same, however, an application under Section 151 C.P.C. was filed before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector, however, without having any consideration for the matter in issue, again under total mis...
Janakirama Veddara Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Nalgonda Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD699; 1998(3)ALT808
1. In all these writ petitions common questions of law are involved and hence they are disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioners in some of the writ petitions are the Labour Contract Cooperative Societies registered under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act and some of the petitioners are individual contractors. In some of the petitions, the Circular issued by the Government dated 24-1-1996 directing the Departments to insist on tax clearance certificate from the commercial authorities is challenged.3. Tender Notifications were issued by various departments who are arrayed as respondents in the writ petitions and while issuing tender notifications various conditions were stipulated. Some such conditions are that the applications for receipt of the tender schedules should be accompanied by clearance certificate by the Commercial Tax Department, Income Tax Department, Experience Certificate, deposit of Earnest Money Deposit (for short 'E.M.D'). As far as the Labour Contract Coopera...
K. Ramanamma Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD86; 1998(2)ALT709; 1998CriLJ2469
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. ThisWrit Petition is filed challenging the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police & Additional District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, 2nd respondent herein, by exercising the powers conferred under Section 3(2) read withSection 2(a) and (g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short 'Act 1 of 1986'), by which the husband of the petitioner, Kandula Trinath Rao, was detained in Central Prison at Visakhapatnam, on the ground that he is involved in committing the offences of violent and 'goonda' acts very frequently in violation of the laws of the land and doing clandestine business and creating terror in the minds of the public and that his 'goonda acts' are affecting adversely the maintenance of public order in the area of Railway Yards, National Alluminium Company, Central Ware House Godown, Hindusthan Shipyard, Visa...
M. Peraiah Vs. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Govt. of A.P. H ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD761; 1998(2)ALT417
ORDER1. In this writ petition, a writ of mandamus is sought declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in permitting the 6th respondent to change the location of the retail shop for sale of Indian liquor and Foreign Liquor from Varikuntapadu to Bhogyamvaripalli (Timmareddypalli) Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and a consequential direction to respondents 2 to 4 to relocate the shop of the 6th respondent as per the Nellore District Gazette Notification dated 5-4-1997.2. According to the petitioner, auction for selling Indian Liquor and Foreign-Liquor in retail was held in the month of April, 1997 and he became the highest bidder for shop No.1, located in Pamuru, Pamuru Mandal, bearing Gazette No. 100 of NelloreDistrict Gazette. The auction amount was Rs. 22,50,000/- and the upset price fixed by the respondents was Rs. 4,00,000/-. After completing the necessary formalities, petitioner has been carrying on the business from 25-4-1997 in Pamuru village.3...
Polsani Jagannath Reddy and anr. Vs. Gurram Vijaya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALD262; 1998(4)ALT257
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. Heard. By the impugned decree, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that two applications filed by the appellants herein under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree and another application for condonation of delay were rejected by the trial Court. Against the order of such rejection, the matter was taken to this Court. In this view ofthe matter, when the appellants have already exhausted the remedy under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC, they could not maintain the appeal.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the remedy to file an application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC and the remedy by way of an appeal under Section 96(2) CPC are concurrent remedies and an appeal against the original ex parte decree can be preferred notwithstanding that the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected. The learned Counsel for the a...
Tavva Obula Reddy and anr. Vs. Mulapaku Salamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALT641
B.V. Ranga Raju, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order of the trial Court dismissing an application filed under Order-6, Rule-17 of the Civil Procedure Code to amend the plaint.2. According to the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was the stand taken in the written statement that the suit site is gramanatham poramboke and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to any injunction that necessitated the filing of the application to amend the plaint.3. It was stated in the counter that the petitioners who have filed the suit for mere injunction cannot be permitted to seek the relief for declaration as well. However, on reading of the plaint, it is seen that the plaintiffs have asserted that they are the absolute owners of the property and have been enjoying the property using the same as rastha. It may be so that they have not chosen to seek the relief for declaration of title; on the ground that in view of the threatened dispossession the su...
State of A.P., Revenue Dept., Hyderrabad and Others Vs. P. Bharathi an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD529; 1999(2)ALT210
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. The State Government, Revenue and Police authorities who were respondents in Writ Petition No.11 173 of 1997 are the appellants herein. The said writ petition was filed by respondents (5 in number) questioning the proceedings dated 17-5-1997 issued by the 4th respondent and seeking a direction restraining the respondents in the writ petition from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over an extent of Ac.1.20 cents in S.No.479/1 of Tirupati Urban Village and Mandai. They have also sought for a declaration that the action of the respondents in the writ petition in demolishing the compound wall is illegal and claimed damages. The impugned proceedings issued by the District Revenue Officer under the orders of the District Collector read as follows :'In the circumstances reported by the Mandai Revenue Officer, Tirupati (Urban) in reference read above, permission is hereby accorded to the Mandai Revenue Officer, Tirupati (Urban) for handing over th...
Kunapuraju Rangaraju Vs. Govt. of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD802; 1998(3)ALT215
1. In all these writPetitions though the relief is claimed in different ways but the common issue that arises for consideration is the validity of Notification issued in G.O.Ms. No.76 Environment, Forest, Science and Technology (Forest III) Department, dated 25-9-1995 under Section 18 of the Wild Life Protection Act (for short 'the Act') and whether the petitioners could be prohibited from carrying on pisciculture in the lands owned or occupied by them till final notification under Section 26A of the Act is issued.2. The petitioners in some of these writ Petitions are the owners of various extents of land situated in West Godavari and Krishna districts abutting Kolleru lake. It is their case that they have been conducting agricultural operations for some time but as the time went on it became uneconomic for them to conduct conventional agricultural system and therefore, they converted the land into fishing tanks and rearing the fish for commercial purposes. Some of the petitioners are ...
iqbal HussaIn Vs. Mrs. P. Bharathi Bai and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD373; 1998(3)ALT295
1. Heard both sides.2. The third party-petitioner has filed this revision aggrieved by the orders passed in E.A.No.128/93 in E.P.No. 51/92 in O.S.No. 699/90 on the file of XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, dated 15th March, 1996 rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C.3. Mr. M.A.Shakoor, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in occupation of Ihe premises bearing Municipal No. 11-2-165 and 166 situated in Mylargadda, Secunderabad, in his own right as tenant of the 2nd respondent. Earlier, he had fileda suit in O.S.319/1993 on 12-10-1993 against the respondents on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and obtained orders of 'Slants-quo' in I.A.No.1868/1993, dated 12-10-1993 and he brought the Status-quo order passed by the learned Judge to the notice of the Court and that he is not bound by the decree which is sought' to be executed in respect of the premises on the ground ...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Sb. Naseema Begum and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: [1998]258ITR503(AP)
T.N.C. Rangarajan, J.1. In these cases, certain common questions have been referred by the Tribunal. In R.C. Nos. 106 of 1989, 107 of 1989, 116 of 1989, 133 of 1989, 134 of 1989 and 229 of 1990; the following three questions have been referred :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the probable estate duty payable on the death of the life tenant has to be taken into account and the value of the property will be diminished by that for charge of wealth-tax in the hands of the remaindermen?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the rate of interest adopted by the assessee's actuary is correct?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the rate of interest as given in the WT Rules for valuation of life interest is applicable to the present case where the corpus is jewellery which is appreciable asse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »