Andhra Pradesh Court August 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. Krishna Reddy Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)ALD537; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)612; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)345
ORDER1. The Petitioner was granted anticipatory bail for 15 days in Crl. MP No.2270 of 1997 on 10-11-1997 by the Sessions Judge, then extensions were given, then he moved a fresh bail application for anticipatory bail in Crl.MP No. 1350 of 1998 in which the Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail for a period of one month. The learned Sessions Judge observed :'Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case and as the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail previously, the petition is allowed granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner for a period of one month with a direction that in the event of his arrest, he should be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties, each in a like sum, to thesatisfaction of the arresting authority and meanwhile the petitioner has to seek regular bail from the concerned Court.'This order was in force, the petitioner had not been arrested but surprisingly he moved on application in Crl. MP No....
Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Ongole Vs. Tu ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: II(1998)ACC732; 1999ACJ1077; 1998(5)ALD600; 1998(5)ALT271
1. An important question of law as to the interpretation of 'No fault liability' under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as far as Insurance Company is concerned, arises in this batch of appeals.2. All these appeals have been preferred by the Insurance Company against the awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal arising out of a common accident. Hence, they are disposed of by a common judgment.3. An unfortunate accident took place on 18-2-1995 when the Tractor-Trailor bearing NO.AP-27/T 4173 and AP-27/T 4174 owned by the 1st respondent was proceeding towards the agricultural fields. While so, the connecting hook from the Tractor was delinked, with the result, the trailer fell down in N.S.P. Canal. The coolies in the Trailer were drowned, out of them some died and some of them received injuries. The Tractor-trailor was insured with the 2nd respondent-Insurance company. The Legal Representatives of the deceased occupants in the trailor laid a claim before the Motor Acciden...
M. Venkateswar Reddy and Others Vs. Apsrtc and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD39; 1998(5)ALT686
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed challenging item No.3 of the resolution No.92 of 1991 dated 31-5-1991, prescribing marks for the selection of Class-I Senior Scale as contrary to Regulation 4(b) of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964, read with item No.3 of Class-I Senior Scale Service of Section B of Annexure - A to APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 and consequently praying for setting aside the selection list drawn up on 11-4-1995 and the appointments of respondent Nos.3 to 6 as Divisional Managers.2. According to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners are the direct recruits in the post of Assistant Mechanical Engineers and in the seniority list of Assistant Mechanical Engineers dated 10-11-1994, their names find place at Sr. Nos. 17,22, 27,28, 30 to 37 and 39 respectively. The)' stated that respondent Nos.3 and 4 arc the Assistant Traffic Managers and their names in the said seniority list dated 10-11-1994 are found at Sr, No...
M. Subba Reddy and ors. Vs. Apsrtc, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD10; 1998(5)ALT542
ORDER1. These three Writ Petitions were heard together.2. Writ Petition Nos.756 and 757 of 1995 raise common questions of fact and law, having regard to the nature of the relief in these two Writ Petitions that the seniority list published by the respondent No. 1 Corporation vide Notification No. Ea/752 (1)/94-PD, dated 10-11-1994, has been challenged. The only difference between these two writ petitions is that in W.P. No. 756/1995, the petitioners have challenged the seniority list pertaining to the cadre of Assistant Traffic Manager and W.P. No. 757/1995 pertains to the cadre of Assistant Mechanical Engineers. WP No.7410/96 is also filed challenging the seniority list vide notification dated 10-11-1994 and consequent action of the respondent No. 1 Corporation in seeking to revert the petitioners from the post of Divisional Manager/Deputy Chief Traffic Inspectors, while retaining their juniors as illegal and arbitrary. In other words, the petitioners in these three writ petitions. i....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Andhra Pradesh Lightings Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR650(AP)
S.V. Maruthi, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question was referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that electrical bulb was not a domestic electrical appliance appearing at item No. 12 of the Eleventh Schedule, entitling the assessee to investment allowance in respect of machinery employed in the manufacture of electrical bulbs ?'2. The facts in brief are as follows :The assessee is a company carrying on business in the manufacture of electrical bulbs. The assessment year is 1979-80. The assessee claimed investment allowance at 25 per cent. of the cost of the plant and machinery which was Rs. 92,81,994. The claim of the investment allowance came to Rs. 23,20,498. The main contention of the assessee is that the electrical bulbs do not fall under item No. 12 of the Eleventh Schedule. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the investment allowance cla...
Food Corporation of India Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: [2003]133STC424(AP)
S.V. Maruthi, J.1. The assessee filed the T.R.C. against the orders of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 411/1993. He raised two questions :1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of tax set-off in terms of explanation to items 21 of the Third Schedule to the Act to the extent of rice sold from out of the tax suffered paddy ?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that there is no implied or express contract of sale in respect of gunny bags though attendant circumstances like invoicing for the contents and containers separately coupled with significant cost of gunny being charged to the buyer clearly establish express or implied contract of sale in respect of the gunny bags ?2. The relevant assessment year is 1980-1981. The assessee is Food Corporation of India. The assessing officer included the cost of the gunny bags in the turnover and levied tax. Aggrieved by that the assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Com...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Andhra Pradesh Lightings Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]109TAXMAN337(AP)
ORDERMaruthi, J. -At the instance of the revenue, the following question was referred for the opinion of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that electric bulb was not a domestic electrical appliance appearing at Item No. 12 of the XI Schedule, entitling the assessee to Investment Allowances in respect of machinery employed in the manufacture of electric bulbs?'2. The facts in brief are as folllows : The assessee is a company carrying on business in the manufacture of electric bulbs. The assessment year is 1979-80. The assessee claimed investment allowance at 25 per cent of the cost of the plant and machinery which was Rs. 92,81,994. The claim of investment allowance came to Rs. 23,20,498. The main contention of the assessee is that the electric bulbs do not fall under Item No. 12 of the XI Schedule. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the investment allowance claimed by the assessee. On a...
Koraboina Lakshmi Vs. Malkapuram Anasuya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD469; 1998(5)ALT316
ORDER1. The petitioner herein was the original defendant and the respondent herein was the plaintiff. The plaintiff-respondent herein instituted the suit OS No.1080 of 1981 in the Court of the II Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24-2-3980. The agreement of sale was executed by the defendant-petitioner herein in favour of the plaintiff-respondent herein for a consideration of Rs.36,000/-. The suit was decreed on 27-2-1986 directing the plaintiff-respondent herein to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the decree i.e., on or before 27-3-1986 and the defendant-petitioner herein was directed to execute the sale-deed within two months from the date of decree.2. It is further alleged by the defendant-petitioner herein that the plaintiff-respondent herein did not deposit the amount of Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of decree but fi...
T.R. Narasimhulu Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)ALD736; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)635; 1999(1)ALT794; 1999CriLJ30
ORDER1. The facis leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner - accused was charged of offence under Section 304-A of IPC and was under trial before the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi in CC No.222 of 1990. The trial was completed on 20-12-1994 and the petitioner was convicted under Section 304-A IPC and also under Section 252 of Cr.P.C. He was sentenced to imprisonment for one year. Against this order of conviction and sentence he filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge being Crl.A.No.20 of 1995 which was decided by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupathi on 10-6-1997. The learned Trial Court had relied heavily on the evidence of PW1 and convicted the petitioner. The case of the petitioner before the appellate Court was that he had not been given opportunity of cross-examining PW1 who was the pivotalwitness in the case, therefore the conviction could not be sustained. 1 have seen from the records that PWI who was the eye-witnes...
Simplex Castings Limited Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)ALD544; 1998(5)ALT453; 1999(63)ECC26; 1998(104)ELT318(AP)
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. In these two writ petitions, a writ of mandamus is soughtdeclaring the notification No.286 of 90 Customs, dated 15-12-1990 issued by the first respondent is prospective in operation and not retrospective, a further declaration that the provisions under Section 15(i)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 are ultra-vires of the Constitution and a consequential direction declaring that the ex-bond clearance for home consumption bill assessed by the second respondent increasing the auxiliary duty from 5% to 25% is illegal are also sought.2. Though the petitioners in these two writ petitions are different, but as the notification No.286 of 90 Customs, dated 15-12-1990 and the action of the respondents in increasing the auxiliary duty from 5% to 25% are assailed in both these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.3. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1815 of 1995 is a Public Limited Company having its works at Urla Industrial Estate, Raipur. Under its ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »