Andhra Pradesh Court December 1999 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.
K. Chandrasekharam and Another Vs. Vijay Bhargavi Chit Fund Private Li ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD761; 2000(2)ALT32
1. The civil revision petition is filed against an ex parte order purportedly passed under Order XXXVI11 Rule 5 read with Order XXI, Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the third party to the suit, viz., BHEL to withhold an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- from out of the voluntary retirement benefits payable to petitioners 1 and 2. This order was passed on 23-8-1999 and IA was posted to 6-9-1999. The learned Counsel says that a counter has been filed and the matter is being contested. It is not known why the final orders are not passed in IA sofar.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in J. Balakrishna v. Union Bank of India, : 1999(4)ALD22 . The learned single Judge was of the view that the attachment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC cannot be ordered against a third party and there is no procedure prescribed for impleading third parties in the 1A filed for attachment. The learned Judge further held as follows:'T...
State of A.P. and Another Vs. Kapa Babu Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD80; 2000(5)ALT674
1. The appeal and the revision petition arise out of an award dated 6-9-1993 passed by the arbitrator and confirmed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada by his common judgment and decree dated 4-11-1994. CRP No. 1786 of 1995 arises out of the judgment and decree in OP No.305 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada making the award dated 6-9-1993 as 'Rule of the Court'. CMA No.707 of 1995 is filed against the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada dismissing the suit filed by the appellant-petitioner.2. The facts leading to the filing of the revision and the appeal are as set out hereunder:The respondent has entered into an agreement No.59 of 1987-88 dated 27-7-1987 for execution of widening and strengthening the carriage from KM. 0.00 to KM. 1.20 of Jaggayyapeta-Muktyala Road. The time for completion of the work is nine months from the date of handing over of the site. The site was handed over on 26-8-1987 and the work is...
Thomas Joseph Vs. Official Liquidator and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1999
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas249(AP); (2000)2CompLJ61(AP)
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This application is filed by the applicant under rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1956, to direct respondent No. 1, i.e., the official liquidator to return to the applicant the additional machinery brought in to the company by him, the description of which is given in document No. 4 at page 17 of the material papers and also return to the applicant an amount of Rs. 20,00,000 brought in by him as promoter's contribution from the funds/assets of the company and further direct respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to return to the applicant Rs. 2,00,000 each received by them as 'upfront' payment. It is stated by the petitioner that he is a regular customer forming a major clientele and dependent upon the products of the company in liquidation for the petitioner's own manufacturing activity. When Satya Sai Polymers Limited Company was not in a position to conduct the business, the board of directors requested the petitioner to take over the company to strengthen its managemen...
V. Murali Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD658; 2000(1)ALT199
ORDER1. These three writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order, asthey are inter-related and the subject matterthat arises for consideration is one and the same.2. The petitioner in WP No.9710 of 1992 obtained a quarry lease for Road Metal and building stone over an extent of 1.00 Hectar in Sy.No.4 of Pokeru village, Bheemunipatnam Taluk Visakhapatnam District for a period of five years under proceedings dated 24-9-1985 from the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam. The lease deed was executed on 21-12-1985 for a period of five years and valid upto 20-12-1990. The Assistant Director by an order dated 24-9-1990 rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of renewal on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of Rs.20,017/- payable to the Government. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Director of Mines and Geology. The Director by an order dated 20-12-1991 rejected the appeal.3. Thereafter the petitioner claims to have filed an appeal to the Pr...
Akash and Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD773; 2000(2)ALT373; II(2000)DMC490
ORDER1. The first petitioner is a minor aged nine years. The second petitioner is the first petitioner's maternal grand father aged 70 years. Both of them are residents of different localities in the city of Trivendrum, Kerala. They approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing this writ petition. The relief prayed is that this Court be pleased to declare that the Family Court, Secunderabad has no jurisdiction to pass any order concerning a minor child living in Trivendrum under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereafter called the Guardianship Act for brevity) and further declaration that a minor child has a fundamental right to stay with the person according to his wishes.2. The first petitioner is the grand child of the second petitioner and son bom out of wedlock between one Mr. K. V. Balasubramanyam and Dr. K. Radhika (daughter of the 2nd petitioner). Unfortunately, the mother of the first petitioner left her husband a...
Kapa Veerabhadurudu and Others Vs. Special Deputy Collector, West Goda ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD52; 2000(1)ALT452
ORDER1. Four petitioners file this writ petition. They prayed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the sole respondent in issuing the notice-dated 28-12-1998 to the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India (the Articles are referred to in the prayer itself). They also seek a consequential direction to the respondent not to dispossess the petitioners from the land covered by RS No.8 admeasuring Ac.9-00 situated at Nagampallam village of Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District.2. The averments in the affidavit filed by the first petitioner on behalf of other petitioners are as follows:--The petitioners allege that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land in question. They submit that they purchased the land jointly from Smt. MadipatiSatgurudevi who got the land from her grandmother Smt. K. Chinnamma as Pasupu Kumkuma. In turn, Smt. K. Chinnamma, it is stated, purchased the land in the year 1935...
S. Lolakshi and Another Vs. N. Tatiah and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-1999
Reported in: II(2000)ACC134; 2001ACJ1830; 2000(2)ALD395; 2000(1)ALT535
1. This appeal is preferred against the award of the Tribunal made in MVOP No.76 of 1992, dated 5-12-1994 wherein the Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the petitioners on untenable grounds. Initially the claim was laid by the parents, sisters, brothers, wife and minor daughter of the deceased under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The brief facts of the case are as follows:On 6-12-1991 the deceased went to Medarametla. There he purchased three bags of groundnut and in order to seel them, he left to Chilakaluripet along with the goods by boarding lorry Bearing No.ADM 5136 belonging to the first respondent. The driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and on reaching Martur, dashed against a stationed lorry, and as a resulted the deceased-Ramaraju sustained fracture of both the legs and later succumbed to his injuries in the Government Hospital, Guntur.2. The first respondent filed counter denying the ...
National Surgical Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR667(AP)
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. In this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee seeks reference of the following questions for consideration of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 92,000 under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the circumstances mentioned by the assessee which necessitated loans being taken in cash did not constitute reasonable cause for not levying penalty under Section 271D of the Act ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have followed the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of A.B. Shanthi v. Asst Director of Inspection : [1992]197ITR330(Mad) and cancelled the penalty as not valid in law ?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ...
Cherukuri Venkateswarlu Vs. Pamidi Kotaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD612; 2000(2)ALT361
ORDER1. There is an execution petition pending before the trial Court. It was listed on 26th March, 1999 on which date the judgment-debtor's Counsel represented that the decree had been attached in OS No.3 of 1999 by Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, therefore the execution proceedings be stayed. It was objected to by the other side. The learned trial Court refused to stay the execution of the decree. He found that the attachment order passed under Order 21, Rule 53 CPC does not amount to stay within the meaning of Section 15 of the Limitation Act, therefore, he directed further proceedings in the execution petition and asked the judgment-debtor to adduce his evidence. This order is challenged by way of this revision.2. It will be profitable to quote Rule 53 of Order 21 CPC:'53. (1) Where the property to be attached is a decree, either for the payment of money or for sale in enforcement of a mortgage or charge, the attachment shall be made- (a) if the decrees were passed by the same Court,...
Chunduru Padmavathi Vs. Chunduru Narasimha Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD106; 2000(1)ALT613
1. The defendant is the appellant. The parties are closely related to each other. The defendant/appellant is the widowed daughter-in-law of the respondent/ plaintiff. The respondent filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement ofsale dated 14-8-1979 executed by the appellant agreeing to sell the suit schedule property, which consists of Ac.1-00 of wet land in Garikapadu village, for a total sate consideration of Rs.5,750-00. On the date of agreement, a sum of Rs.200-00 was paid by the respondent to the appellant as advance. As per the terms of the agreement the balance of sale consideration is payable within one month from the date of the agreement, at the time of registration of the sale deed, and the appellant has to deliver the possession of the land along with the standing crop at the time of registration. On 27-8-1979 the respondent issued Ex.A2 notice stating that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and further stating that it was learnt by hi...