Andhra Pradesh Court June 1999 Judgments

Vijaya Kumar Patangay Vs. Kedarnath

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALD182; 1999(4)ALT196

ORDER1. The subject-matter of this revision petition arises under the AndhraPradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Rent Control Act'). The unsuccessful landlord is the revision petitioner. The respondent is the tenant in a non-residential premises, admittedly owned by the petitioner. There is no dispute whatsoever with regard to the ownership of the petition schedule premises. There is also no dispute with regard to the jura! relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.2. The petitioner herein filed RC No.604 of 1988 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under Section 10(3)(b) and 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Rent Control Act, for the eviction of the respondent/tenant from the premises consisting of ground floor Mulgi and first floor portion bearing Municipal No.21-2-7, situated at Pathargatti, Hyderabad (herein after referred to as 'the Premises'). The eviction of the respondent/tenant herein is sought mainly on the gro...

Voltas Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-ii and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALD145; 1999(4)ALT141; (1999)IILLJ1296AP

ORDERM.S. Liberhan, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-management against the order of the labour Court whereunder the order of dismissal passed by the appellant-management against the 2nd respondent-employee has been set aside and directed reinstatement of the employee in service with full backwages and other attendant benefits, however, with an opportunity to the management to lead further evidence in the matter in support of its decision of imposing punishment as against the 2nd respondent.2. The facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent has been proceeded in a disciplinary proceeding on the charge that he assaulted a co-worker and the domestic enquiry resulted in his dismissal from service which was challenged before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, on a consideration of the material on record, come to the conclusion that principles of natural justice were violated during the course of en...

Omprakash Tiwari and Another Vs. Government of A.P. and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD161; 1999(4)ALT327

ORDERT. Ch. Sisrya Rao, J 1. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been sought to be invoked in these two writ petitions by the petitioners in a Public Interest Litigation.2. The petitioner in WP No.8421 of 1999 is a resident of Nizambad District and claims himself to be the Secretary of Rajasthan Shikshana Samithi which has been running 'Haricharan Marwadi Vidhyalay', a recognized institute in Nizambad town. The petitioner in the other writ petition claims himself to be the Teacher and Correspondent of St. Adam's High School, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad, which is again a recognized institute of Government of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner seek a writ, order, declaration or direction by declaring the inaction of the respondents in not taking a decision immediately to add 16 1/2 marks in the General Science Paper-I (Physical Sciences) of SSC Examination, 1999 to all the students who appeared for the Annual Examinations, 1999 as arbi...

S. Venkatarami Reddy Vs. Manchiraju Subba Rao and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(5)ALD191; 1999(4)ALT737

1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 21-06-1985 in O.S.No.44 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kandukur, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 37,779.50 ps. with interest basing on the promissory note dated 14-08-1980 was partly decreed for a sum of Rs. 11,189.24 ps. by giving benefit under Act IV of 1938 with future interest at 6% per annum.2. The case of the plaintiff is that all the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.24,500/-on 14-08-1980 from the plaintiff andexecuted the promissory note on the same day for valid consideration agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum on demand and inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendants have not paid any amount and, therefore, he has got issued a notice dated 26-07-1983-Ex.A2 and the defendants who received the same sent a reply with false and untenable allegations. Therefore, the suit is filed to recover the suit claim with costs and ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Navabharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2000]244ITR261(AP)

S.V. Maruthi, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions are referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is no basis to hold that there was a business connection between Nava-bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. and the non-resident foreign company and that the latter company was in receipt of income from/through the. Indian company and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is no basis to hold that Navabharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. could not be regarded as an agent of the non-resident foreign company under Section 163 ?' 2. The facts in brief are as follows : The relevant assessment years are 1976-77 and 1977-78. The assessee-company, Navabharat Ferro Alloys Limited, hereinafter will be called the 'Indian company'. The Indian company entered into agreement with Energomach Export, Moscow, USSR, hereinafter called the 'foreign company', for the purpose of purchasing two mac...

State of A.P. Vs. General Electronic Corporation

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2000]118STC514(AP)

ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J.1. The question that involved in this tax revision case is whether the M-Seal is an adhesive falling under entry 191 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 or to be treated as falling under the entry general goods. The Tribunal, in view of the report filed and following the judgment of this Court, held that M-Seal is not an adhesive as it is used for blocking of leakages and as per the Central Excise Tariff Rules, it was classified under item No. 32.14.2. Even according to the Tribunal, the M-Seal is not used as adhesive, but, only as blocking agent to block the leakages of liquids. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal.The tax revision case is, therefore, dismissed. No costs....

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Navabharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2000]109TAXMAN122(AP)

Maruthi, J.At the instance of the revenue, the following questions are referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this Court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is no basis to hold that there was a business connection between Navabharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. and the non-resident foreign company and that the latter company was in receipt of income from the Indian company and2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is no basis to hold that Navabharat Ferro Alloys Ltd., could not be regarded as an agent of the non-resident foreign company under section 163 ?'2. Facts in brief are as follows : The relevant assessment years are 1976-77 and 1977-78. The assessee-company, Navabharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. ('Indian company'). The Indian company entered into agreement with Energomach Export, Moscow, USSR foreign company') for the purpose of purchasing two machines of 16.5 MVA Open Electric Arc Furnace under first agreement dated 28-5-1971 wo...

Chunduri Sri Hari Rao Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Othe ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

K. Ranga Rao, Member: 1. This is a complaint filed under Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards settlement of the insurance claim with interest @ 24% per annum, to pay damages of Rs. 20,000/- per year from the date of the incident till the date of payment with interest @ 24% per annum and costs. 2. The material averments in the complaint are briefly as follows : The complainant is the Managing Partner of a registered firm by name M/s. Sri Vasavi Cashews Manufacturing Company at Vetapalem in Prakasam District and the complainant used to go to some places for purchases and collections now and then by train and he used to carry heavy amounts with him for that purpose. At the instance of the first opposite partys agent the complainant obtained Cash in Transit insurance policy bearing No. 725940037 dated 31.12.1987 for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the first opposite party i.e., Branch Manag...

B.G. Sunanda Rao and Others Vs. Khemani Distilleries Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD647; 1999(3)ALT650

ORDER1. The misconception of the right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India seems to have prompted the petitioners, 16 in all, to file this writ petition. The petitioners are natural persons professing Christianity as their religion. In the writ petition, the petitioners have sought for a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in manufacturing and selling any liquor like Brandy, Rum and Whisky with the emblem or wrapper containing the photos of Church and Holy Christ and the expression 'The Christian Brothers' as illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and for a consequential order directing the respondents to immediately stop using the emblem or any other wrapper containing the aforesaid figures and words and pass such other or further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. The above relief is sought on the basis of the following factual matrix :3. The petitioners profess Christianity as their religion; the first...

M. Mohan Reddy Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD675A; 1999(4)ALT1

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J 1. In this writ petition, the constitutional vires of Sections 13(4) and 16(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is in question.2. The 2nd respondent is a finance company and laid a claim before the 3rd respondent who is an Arbitrator (Hon'ble Sri Justice Kuppuswamy, a retired Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court). The claim relates to recovery of money said to be due on account of hire purchase agreement entered into by the writ petitioner herein. Two others, namely G. Jaganmohan Rao and Smt. Prathima Reddy are added as respondents, on the ground that they are the guarantors. Clause 15 of the agreement reads as follows:'All disputes, differences and/or claims, arising out of this hire purchase agreement, whether during its subsistence or thereafter, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to ...