Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Y. Chandraiah Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD89
1. Rule Nisi. Notice before admission was issued, counters have been filed and Counsels on both the sides have been heard at length. Both the petitions raise same questions of law and fact, therefore with the consent of the parties these petitions are disposed of at this stage.2. A notification was issued by the respondent Corporation on 31st December, 1997 calling for applications for selecting a dealer for the retail outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited at Aler, Nalgonda district. The petitioners in both the petitions submitted their applications offering their candidature. In terms of the notification, the candidates have to submit papers pertaining to their financial status, particulars of property standing in their name or in the name of their spouse and children. According to the petitioners, they gave the requisite documents along with the application. The third respondent after receiving the applications short listed the candidates and a list of three candidates was p...
Sri Laxmi Cloth Stores, Vijayawada Krishna Dist. Vs. Ratna and Co., Ma ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD230; 1999(6)ALT681
1. Inspite of service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear either in person or through Counsel. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant herein against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,91,900/- being the balance of principal and interest due under the Katha dealings between the parties. The suit was filed by the appellant-firm represented by its Managing Partner V.L Venkateswarlu @ Laxmipathi. The respondent-defendant, after receipt of summons in the suit, put in appearance through an advocate but failed to file the written statement despite the grant of several adjournments. He was finally setex parte. In support of the plaintiff's claim, one witness was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. Ex.A1 is the photostat copy of the acknowledgment of registration of firms issued by Registrar ofFirms dated 7-7-1996. Ex.A2 is the photostatcopy of partnership deed dated 1-4-1996. Ex.A3 is the Katha o...
Sri Laxmiganapathi Enterprises Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Nalgonda an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD529
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. Inthese writ petitions, the petitioners who are rice millers question the legality of the assessment orders passed by the first respondent for the year 1997-98 on the ground that the deduction of tax to the extent permissible under Rule 6(1)(l) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules has not been given based on the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the 2nd respondent herein in Roc. No.AII (1)/1950/98, dated 24-2-1998.2. Paddy and rice are declared goods. Declared goods are specified in Section 14 of Central Sales Tax Act to be goods of special importance in inter-State Trade and Commerce. The declared goods are chargeable to tax under Section 6 of APGST Act read with III Schedule at single point and at a rate not exceeding 4%. Paddy is taxable at 4% at the first purchase point whereas rice is taxable at the point of first sale at 4%. In order to avoid the contingency of both paddy and corresponding rice being subjected to tax...
M.A. Qayyum Vs. Apsrtc, Musheerabad, Hyd. and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT643
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The case of the petitioner is very simple. The petitioner was admittedly appointed as a Conductor in December, 1973 by the respondent-Corporation. While he was working, due to disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, he was removed from service on 18-7-1989. The petitioner having failed in appeal raised a dispute before the Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad by ID No.8 of 1992. The Labour Court after considering the rival contentions, set aside the order of removal and passed award on 17-8-S992 directing the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, it was directed that petitioner was not entitled for any backwages or attendant benefits. The award was published in December, 1992. Thus, the award had to be enforced by end of January, 1993. The petitioner was reinstated into service on 2-2-1993. The petitioner, submits that since he ...
Dantham Chinna Chengachari Vs. Dantham Pedda Chengachari and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALT384
ORDERRamesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. The petitioner herein was the plaintiff, who had instituted O.S. No. 63 of 1995 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur for partition of the suit schedule properties. The evidence on the side of the plaintiff was over. Then the first defendant examined himself. He wanted to examine a witness named Sri K. Nagalingappa on his side to prove that there was already a partition in the year 1961 between the parties to the suit. But the said witness could not attend the Court because of his illness. Therefore, the first defendant filed LA. No. 719/99 in this suit for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to record his statement on oath but the plaintiff-petitioner herein opposed the said petition. The learned Judge appeared to have allowed the said application filed by the first defendant. Against the said order, the plaintiff-petitioner herein filed the present revision.2. Heard both the Counsels.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner sub...
Sonthi Babu Rao and Others Vs. S. Sivananda Rao and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD152; 2000(1)ALT660
ORDER1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6-7-1988 passed in AS No.141 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. By the impugned judgment and decree the appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree of the 1st Addl. Munsif, Kakinada dated 16-8-1982 passed on his filed OS No.673 of 1978. In other words, the trial Court has dismissed the plaintiffs suit and the appellate Court has decreed it. Therefore, the defendant has come up to this Court by way of this second appeal.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants strenuously contended that the judgment and decree of the appellate Court is wholly illegal and contrary to the pleadings and evidence onrecord. He further submitted that under Sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act once the properties purchased in the name of the appellant/plaintiff to the extent of half share each, the title of the defendant cannot be divested and at ...
Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hanamakonda Depot, Warangai Dist. Vs. G. Rajaia ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD505; 1999(5)ALT636
ORDER1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation represented by its Depot Manager, Hanamkonda Depot, Warangal challenges the validity of the Award dated 31-8-1990 made in ID No.39/89 on the file of the Industrialtribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal on various grounds.2. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service as a Conductor subject to the conditions viz., (a) of the entire period of absence from duty with effect from 29-11-1986 till the employee reports for duty be treated 'not on duty'; (b) his basic pay be reduced to the minimum of time scale for a period of three years which will have effect on his future increments; and (c) the employee should pay the security deposit afresh as per the rules of the Corporation.3. The 1st respondent while conducting the bus bearing No.AAZ 4069 on the route Waddepally to Hanamkonda on 27-11-1986 is alleged to have entered into an altercation with two passengers who loaded the bus at Hanamkonda Chowrasta to...
Radiant Electornics Ltd., Bhubaneswar Vs. Electronics Corporation of I ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD173
ORDER1. This order will dispose of the preliminary objection of the respondent regarding the maintainability of theapplication.2. In IA No. 16 of 1997, Justice P. A. Choudari (former Judge of this Court) had been appointed Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the new Arbitration Act'). The Arbitrator has passed the award on 15-1-1999. The petitioner has filed the application under Section 34 of the new Arbitration Act for setting aside the Award passed by the Arbitrator on 15-1-19993. The question that falls for determination is whether the application under Section 34 of the new Arbitration Act for setting aside the Award lies in this High Court, because it is not a Court within the meaning of Section 34 ibid.4. Learned Counsel of the petitioner has argued that under Section 42 of the new Arbitration Act, the Court, where the application has been made for appointment of Arbitrator, alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral procee...
M.C. Chinna Nagamma Vs. M.C. Giddamma and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD535
1. This appeal is preferredby the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12-9-1988 passed by the II Additional'District Judge, Kurnool in AS No.76 of 1983. By the impugned judgment and decree, the lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool dated 25-6-1983 on OS No.3 of 1981 and consequently dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence, the plaitiff is before this Court in this second appeal.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff strenuously contended that the impugned judgment and decree of the appellate Court are illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. He further submitted that the appellate Court is in error in holding that there was a partition between Chinna Nagamma and Pedda Nagamma during the life time of their mother Chenchamma, wife of Pullanna and the appellate Court failed to see that after the death of Chenchamma, the plaintiff has been in possession of the entire property as ...
D. Manga @ Mangamma Vs. D. Venkata Ramana
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALT141; I(2000)DMC663
Motilal B. Naik, J.1. Exposure of so much hatred and animosity aplenty in this case which culminated in the rocking of a matrimonial home of a Judicial Officer.2. Appellant is the wife whose marriage with the respondent, a newly recruited Judicial Officer of the rank of District Munsif, took place on 18-5-1994. The respondent took charge as District Munsif, Amalapuram, which is his first posting, on 4-5-1994.3. The respondent filed O.P. No. 108 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry (Old O.P. No. 42 of 1996 on the file of Sub-Court, Amalapuram) seeking dissolution of his marriage with the appellant Under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Serious allegations and counter allegations have been levelled against each other by the respondent-husband and appellant-wife. However, we do not propose to trace those countless allegations in this judgment. We may only state few relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal.4...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »