Andhra Pradesh Court December 1999 Judgments

Mohd. Shabbir Sheriff and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(2)ALT565

B. Prakash Rao, J.1. This Appeal is filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 319 of 1984, dt. 26-9-91, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nuzvid, wherein the suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 77,463.20 ps. due under mortgage and for subsequent interest was decreed by passing a preliminary decree and for taking appropriate steps with regard to the final decree in the event of non-payment of the decretal amount.2. In this appeal, the attack is made only on the ground that the grant of interest at 12% per annum is not correct and further that in view of the provisions of Act IV of 1938 appellants are entitled for the benefit of scaling down.3. It is not necessary to go into merits of the case as this Court has already considered the question of applicability of the provisions of Act IV of 1938 vis-a-vis the amended provision Under Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') in Union Bank o...

Punjab National Bank, New Delhi Vs. Chinta Seethapathy Rao and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(1)ALD656; 2000(2)ALT371

1. The appellant is the nationalised bank and is the plaintiff in the trial Court. The plaintiff-bank filed the suit OS No.1278 of 1986 against the defendants and obtained a decree. The plaintiff-bank obtained an order of attachment dated 3-11-1986 passed in IA No.1026 of 1986. The third party-claimant filed a claim petition under Order 38, Rule 8 read with Order 21, Rule 58 CPC for raising the attachment. The trial Court after taking into consideration the fact that the third party-claimant purchased the property under Ex.Al, dated 20-2-1967 long prior to the suit and also relying on Exs.A4 to A17 and 34, held that the property was purchased out of his ownfunds and accordingly held that the claimant has established that he is the owner and possessor of the schedule property and consequently it was held that the petition schedule property is not liable for attachment. So holding, the trial Court has allowed the petition and raised the order of attachment made in 1A No.1026 of 1986. Agg...

Aswani Desai Vs. Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam an ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(1)ALD770; 2000(2)ALT2

ORDER1. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of the 2nd respondent. In this writ petition, she wants a prerogative writ directing the 2nd respondent to approach the Rent Controller under Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the 'Rent Act').2. A reading of the writ affidavit shows that no particular relief is sought against the 1st respondent and the relief is sought only against a private person who is admittedly the landlord. Even in a suit for specific relief, it is well settled that no body can be compelled either to desist from approaching the Court or to approach a legal Forum with a particular remedy. It is left to the exercise of the choice of person to avail such remedies as are available in law.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the landlord requested the tenants to vacate the premises. When they refused he invented, it is alleged a clever method of approaching the 1st respondent to ta...

State of A.P. Vs. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2000]119STC334(AP)

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. This T.R.C. arises out of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal field by the respondent-assesee and setting aside the revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner, C.T., Secunderabad Division, in respect of the assessment year 1991-92.2. The first item of the disputed turnover relates to the discount. The Deputy Commissioner purported to allocate the discount to the sale price of the bottles and cartons and that of IMFL for the reason that the IMFL attracts higher rate of tax. The Tribunal found that the discount relates only to liquor and not to the container or packing material. The Tribunal found that bottles and cartons were purchased from the market and there is nothing unnatural in confining the discount only to liquor manufactured by the assessee. The sale bills were analysed to come to a finding that the discount did not extend to items other than liquor. This is a finding of fact which does not give rise to any question of ...

Mundlapati Peda Venkaiah Vs. Kotha Guravaiah (Died) and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(3)ALT431

ORDERI. Venkatanarayana, J.1. The judgment-debtor in the revision petitioner. The revision petition has been filed by the judgment-debtor questioning the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Gurazala allowing an amendment petition filed by the decree holder under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC permitting him to amend the cause listed amendment in E.P. No. 14 of 1989 in Col. No. 12. The trial Court allowed the petition on the ground that no harm will be caused to both sides. Aggrieved by that short order the present revision petition has been filed.2. Sri P.S. Narayana, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-judgment-debtor has raised a very interesting question of law and contended that Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is meant only for amending the pleadings and it cannot be applied to the execution proceedings. He drew my attention to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 1 CPC which defines 'pleadings' as 'pleadings' shall mean plaint or written statement. In view of the clear provision, the amendment o...

Hari Prasad Badruka Vs. Tellukunta Laxmi and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(1)ALT551

ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. The revision petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant. 2. The revision petitioner filed R.C. No. 676 of 1990 under the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Act) seeking eviction of the first respondent from the mulgi bearing No. 15-9-490 on the ground that she committed wilful default in payment of rent from August 1988 onwards. The first respondent filed her counter contending that when the rents for the months of August and September, 1988 were refused she sent the same through Money orders and since those Money orders were also refused and since there was no reply to the notice sent to inform the bank where deposit of rent could be a made she filed a petition under Section 8 of the Act seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rents into the Court and is regularly depositing the rent into the Courts therein and as such there is no wilful default in payment of rent on her part and so the ...

Sri Dattasai Real Estates Rep. by Its Managing Partner J. Ravindranath ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. We do not find any ground for interfering with the order of the Hyderabad District Forum-I in C.D. No. 1446/1998 dated 23.4.1999 questioned in this appeal by the opposite party in that C.D. (the appellant in the appeal) insofar as it directed it to return Rs. 6,000/- to the complainant, who is the respondent before us. It is not disputed by the Counsel for the appellant that Rs. 6,000/- was paid by the complainant to the appellant towards a scheme started by the appellant in March, 1993. Under that scheme the appellant offered to those who joined as members of the scheme plots of 200 square yards each in its Sairam Nagar layout near Abdullapur in Ranga Reddy district at the rate of Rs. 23,000/- per plot. According to that scheme the said amount was payable partly in instalments of Rs. 500/- per month for 36 months, and partly in additional instalments of Rs. 1,000/- every 5 months; and the balance remaining was to be paid at the time of registration of th...

B. Ganesh and Others Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanamakonda, Warangal ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(1)ALD429; 2000(2)ALT377

ORDER1. This writ petition was filed by three petitioners, who are retail kerosene licensees selling subsidised kerosene in the limits of Municipal Corporation, Warangal, seeking a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order Re. No.B1/ 336/99 dated 8-5-1999 passed by the first respondent, Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanmakonda, District Warangal as illegal, arbitrary and to pass such further orders.2, The first respondent passed the impugned order in order to streamline the distribution of the kerosene and to rationalise the allotment of coupons for supply of kerosene and consequently shifted certain cards from one shop to another shop.Therefore, the petitioners, who are allotted to the shop No.144-A were shifted to shop Nos.7, 11 and 12 respectively. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition was filed.3. It is submitted by the petitioners that they were granted licence Nos.580, 579 and 311 by the Mandal Revenue Officer...

Manjula Varsheney and Another Vs. A.P. State Wakf Board and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(1)ALD452; 1999(6)ALT725

ORDER1. Legal notice dated 16-8-1999 issued by an advocate, on behalf of the first respondent-A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad, terminating the tenancy of the petitioners, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Property bearing No.6-1-1057, known as 'Zard Bungalow' situated at Khairatabad, Hyderabad, is a wakf property. There is no dispute about the same. The said property was leased out under a registered lease deed dated 5-1-1970 in favour of one late Roopkishore Gupta, for a period of sixty years with effect from 5-1-1970 under an express permissiongranted by the first respondent-A.P. State Wakf Board (for short 'the Board') vide resolution dated 22-12-1969. The terms and conditions regulating the lease were set out in the said registered lease deed dated 5-1-1970. We are not concerned in the instant writ petition with the various terms and conditions and as to whether the said lease could have been granted at all. 3. The said Roop...

T. Rajive and Others Vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(2)ALD308; 2000(2)ALT335; [2001]104CompCas293(AP)

ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. By the impugned order passed in Company Application No.22 of 1999, the learned single Judge allowed the first respondent's (State Bank of India) application to grant leave to continue the proceedings in OA No.1301 of 1997 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. The learned Judge also prescribed certain terms and conditions in order to ensure that the Official Liquidator is apprised of the result of the proceedings before the Tribunal and the information relating to Company's properties and more important that the dues of workmen are deposited by the applicant and the applicant seeks permission of the Court before the sale of any properties.2. It is against this order respondents 2 to 10 in the Company Application filed the present appeal. Second appellant was the Managing Director of the Company and others were either Directors or Sureties.3. The company was wound up by an order of this Court dated 16-11-1998. While winding up proceedings were ...