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.
Patchala Seethramaiah Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada and A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALD354; 1999(6)ALT767; [2000]241ITR287(AP)
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J 1. This writpetition seeks refund of tax of Rs.23,281/-paid under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (for short 'the Scheme') which was enunciated under the Finance Act, 1997 (Act 26 of 1997).The petitioner has filed a declaration on 27-12-1997 under the said Scheme disclosing the income for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93, for which no returns were filed by him under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). Later, the petitioner had paid the tax as computed under the said declaration on 31 st March, 1998 and sought for the issuance of a certificate under the Scheme. However, the said payment of lax was beyond the prescribed period under the Scheme as there was a delay of one day. Since the declaration was filed on 27-12-1997, the tax had to be paid by the declarant within a period of three months from the date of declaration along with simple interest at 2% per month as provided under Section 67 of the Scheme. Therefore, the respond...
Gurram Polisetti and Others Vs. Government of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)ALD253; 2000(3)ALT651
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. Thechallenge in this Batch of writ petitions is to the competence of the Agricultural Market Committees to levy and collect market fee on ghee, under the provisions of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act'), at one per cent on sale of ghee and further insisting on the dealers dealing in ghee to obtain licences and maintain proper records.2. The facts as narrated by the petitioners are as under: The petitioners arc traders dealing in ghee. According to them they purchase ghee from farmers and transport the same out of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Ghee is prepared out of butter through mechanised process. From milk, curd is prepared and butter is churned from the curd. However, under the mechanised process butter is also extracted directly from milk. After the butter is prepared it is put to healing process to get ghee, which is a byproduct of butter. Under the provisions of the Act, market fee or cess is levie...
Telugu Desam Party Vs. Election Commission of India and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)ALD631; 1999(5)ALT171
ORDERM.S. Liberhan, C.J.1. This order will dispose of both the writ petitions as they raise common questions of law and fact.2. The brief facts can be taken from WP No.18419 of 1999 in order todispose of the questions raised in these writ petitions.3. The petitioner impugned the ban sought to be enforced by the respondent No.4 specifically and other respondents indirectly in view of the Election Commission's proceedings dated 20-8-1999, restraining the political parties, any person of his own or on behalf of any association, society, media or political party to campaign for candidates or any one else on electronic media, relating to election matters, in conformity with the model code of conduct and policy decision taken in 1998, in consultation with political parties and media persons. The ban has resulted in frustration of contracts entered into with the Congress Party, Telugu Desam Party and other political parties, societies, persons, television companies, radios and cinemas and wit...
Bupinder Lima and Others Vs. State of A.P. and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD143; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)795; 1999(6)ALT101; [2000]99CompCas424(AP)
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC has been filed for quashing the proceedings in CC No.194 of 1999 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in which the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. It appears that one A. V. Lima issued a cheque in favour of the complainanttowards payment of some legally enforceable debt in a sum of Rs.70,000/-. The cheque was presented for realisation by the complainant to his banker. It is said to have been returned on the ground of insufficiency of funds to the credit of the account of the said A. V. Lima. Thereupon, the complainant is said to have issued a notice as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 25-2-1999 to said A.V. Lima and to the petitioners herein. The notice was sent to the said A. V. Lima by registered post with acknowledgment due, and it was returned on 27-2-1999 with a postal endorsement 'pa...
B. Manipal Reddy Vs. State of A.P. and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD175; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)796; 2000(3)ALT271; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)217; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)217; [2001]103CompCas158(AP)
ORDER1. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) seeking quashing of the proceedings in CC Nos.484, 479, 481, 482, 483, 480 and 768 of 1997 respectively, on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in which the petitioner accused is facing charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the Act).2. It appears that the Company, which is represented by the petitioner herein, had agreed to allot some of its shares by private placement out of promoters quota in favour of the complainant and received certain amounts. Later the accused failed to allot the said shares and under a mutual agreement he agreed to repay the amounts received towards the price of shares. Accordingly, towards repayment of the said amount, a cheque for the requisite amount in each case was given by the Company, which is said to be represented by the accused, to the complainant. The cheques in question were presented for realisation and they were ret...
Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Asifabad Depot, Adilabad Vs. G. Badaiah and Ano ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD792; [2001(88)FLR363]
ORDER1. Heard the learned Standing Counsel Ms. G. Jyothi Kiran, appearing on behalf of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. None appears on behalf of the 1st respondent herein inspite of service ofnotice as is evident from the postal acknowledgment. The Registry on verification of the record submits that there is no appearance entered on behalf of the 1st respondent, The 1st respondent is called absent.2. The instant writ petition is directed against the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikham dated 16-11-1991 in ID No.194 of 1991 directing the reinstatement of the 1st respondent herein with continuity of service as Conductor in the Corporation, but without any back wages and attendant benefits.3. Before adverting to the question as to whether the Award suffers from incurable infirmities warranting interference of this Court, it may be necessary to notice a few relevant facts.4. The 1st respondent herein was appointed as a temporary Conductor on 26-...
K. Chandramouli Vs. Katta Satyanarayana Reddy and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD229; 1999(6)ALT138
ORDER1. The petitioner is the first defendant. He has challenged the orderdated 13-7-1999 passed in CFR No.4487 of 1999 in OS No.42 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. In the impugned order, the Court below held that Ex.A2 endorsement made on promissory note does not require stamp duty, therefore, it is (sic not) inadmissible in evidence and consequently the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 11, Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code was rejected.2. Item No.62 of Schedule 1-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 has exempted transfer by endorsement of a bill of exchange, cheque or promissory note.It is relevant to extract Item No.62 Schedule 1-A.Exemptions:Transfers by endorsement(a) of a bill of exchange, cheque or promissory note;(b) of a bill of lading, delivery order warrant for foods, or other mercantile document of title to goods;(c) of a policy of insurance;(d) of securities of the (CentralGovernment).From the reading of the above item, it is clear that un...
Varanasi Madhava Rao Vs. Narayansetti Govind Rajulu and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD194; 1999(6)ALT605
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam dated 10-2-1999 passed in IA No.7 of 1999 in OS No.113 of 1992 dismissing the application filed by the third respondent under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading him as a co-plaintiff.2. Respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff in the suit and respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants in the suit.3. The petitioner herein filed the said IA No.7 of 1999 for impleading him as a co-plaintiff in the suit on the ground that during the pendency of the suit his father had purchased a part of the property which is the subject-matter of the suit and later he acquired title to that property under a will executed by the said purchaser. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 opposed the petition stating that the petition has been filed at a belated stage to drag on the proceedings. However, the fact of his sale of part of the suit property in favour of the third party is admitted by the petitioner's fa...
Raghunath Pershad Died by Lrs. and Another Vs. Janaki Bai and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALD513
ORDER1. This revision arises out of the order dated 22-2-1999 in IA 80 of 1999 in OS 803 of 1991 on the file of the Court of XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, refusing to issue summons to two witnesses, who are party-defendants in the suit.2. The revision petitioner filed the suit seeking a direction for defendants to deliver certain articles, and filed IA 80 of 1999 in the said suit requesting the Court to issue summons to six witnesses giving reasons for citing them as witnesses. The said application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that some of the witnesses, who are cited therein, are parties to the suit and so, no summons can beissued to them. The learned Junior CivilJudge allowed the petition in respect of witnesses 1 to 3 and 5 cited, and refused to issue summons to witnesses 4 and 6 mentioned in the petition because they are defendants in the suit, on the ground that the Counsel for the revision petitioner did not show any decision that the plaintiff can sum...
Pulipati Rajarao Vs. Gondrala Sithamahalakshmi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALT584
J. Chelameswar, J.1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 234 of 1979 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur dated 28-02-1985, this appeal is preferred by the first defendant in so far as the Judgment and decree went against him. Aggrieved by that part of the judgment which went against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs preferred the Cross-objections.2. The dispute in the suit pertains to the property of one late Pulipati Kotaiah. The appellant in A.S. No. 1750 of 1985 is the son of the said Kotaiah. The second respondent is the wife of the pre-deceased son of said Kotaiah, by name Pulipati Rama Lingaiah and the first respondent is the married daughter of the said Rama Lingaiah. Both of them, as plaintiffs filed the above-mentioned suit O.S. No. 234 of 1979. The respondents 3 to 5 are the alienees of some of the properties which fell to the share of late Pulipati Kotaiah at the time of partition between him and his sons in the year 1965 evidenced by Ex.A-3 dat...