Andhra Pradesh Court November 2000 Judgments

Mohd MoizuddIn Siddiqui and Another Vs. Mohd. Ismail

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(6)ALD467; 2000(6)ALT401

ORDER1. The petitioners herein are the tenants and they seek to challenge the orders of eviction from the suit premises of which the respondent is the landlord, who initiated the proceedings mainly on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide personal requirement.2. Initially, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition rejectingboth the grounds. However, on appeal by the landlord, the eviction was ordered accepting the ground of bona fide personal requirement and rejecting the ground of wilful default. Thus, though the ground of wilful default was rejected by both the Courts below, there is no challenge by the landlord on this count. Hence, in this revision, the only question remains to be considered is whether on the facts and circumstances the landlord is entitled to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement.3. There is no dispute as to jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The tenanted premises is a non-residential and commercial shop on a monthly...

B. Krishna Murthy Vs. B. Vishnu Murthy and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALT270

Ghulam Mohammed, J.1. This C.M.P. is filed under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1636 days in filing the appeal against the final decree dated 13-9-1995 in I.A. No. 678 of 94 in O.S. No. 170 of 1973.2. An affidavit is filed by the petitioner stating that first respondent filed O.S. No. 170 of 1973 for partition of joint family properties and for separate possession of his share. By order dated 9-10-1980 Court decreed the suit and held that items 1 to 4 of the Plaint A schedule properties are joint family properties and that first respondent is entitled for half share and further held that items B and C schedule properties are not joint family properties and dismissed the suit in respect of the same.3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed C.C.C.A. No. 107 of 1981 and fifth respondent filed CCCA No. 171 of 1981 in this Court and both the appeals were clubbed and disposed of by a common judgment dated 23-8-1989 confirming the judgment of t...

Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Mortha and Others Vs. Andhra Bank, Tanuku ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD33; 2001(2)ALT180

ORDER1. This revision has been filed against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tanuku dated 27th September, 1999. The learned Judge was deciding an application filed under Order 40, Rule 1 of CPC. Many arguments have been raised at the Bar but those arguments need not be gone into in view of what is to be stated by this Court herein below.A preliminary decree was granted in favour of the Bank on 30th March, 1994. Prior to that, in IA No.500 of 1992 on 7-8-1992 the Court had appointed a Receiver and had authorised him to conduct auction of lease hold rights of rice mill. He was further directed to deposit the lease amount into the Court. Thereafter another order was passed by the trial Court on 4-7-1994 directing the Receiver to hand over the rice mill to the owners who are petitioners in this petition. This order had been necessitated on the ground that the lessee had relinquished the property as he had not found it profitable. The Receiver issued notice to the petitioners on 1...

Visakha Spca Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(6)ALD539; 2000(6)ALT666

ORDER1. Espousing a public cause, this writ petition challenges the action of the respondents herein in attempting to install a decommissioned submarine and a naval ship in an area of 30 x 200 metres in the sea cost at Ramakrishnapuram Beach, opposite Madhuvan Restaurant, Visakhapatnam as illegal and violative of the notification issued by the Central Government dated 19-2-1991 under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules made thereunder.2. The petitioner, a society which came into existence about five years ago, claims to have been formed for the protection of animal life and the endangered species from being killed and subjected to cruelty by unscrupulous human beings and is recognised by the Animal Welfare Board of India, It is stated that Olive Ridley sea turtles swim to the shores of Visakhapatnam from thousands of miles away and lay eggs in the nests put up by them. However, the said species and the eggs laid by them are being destroyed and used by...

Ricoh India Ltd. and Another Vs. Kore Ramesh and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. FA.IA. No. 648/2000 is an application to condone the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. In the affidavit filed by the Advocate for the petitioner/appellant it is stated that at the time of filing the appeal the original certified copy of the order of the District Forum could not be enclosed as it was in the custody of the appellants and, therefore, there was a delay in filing the original c8ertified copy of the order. Hence, the delay has to be condoned. The explanation as found in the affidavit mentioned above does not inspire confidence since the appellants should not have given back the original certified copy of the order when they seek to file the appeal. Therefore, the explanation is not satisfactory. The application FA. IA. No. 648/ 2000, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Even on merits the appeal has to be dismissed.s 2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 in CD. No. 107/1998 on the file of the District Forum, Warangal are the appell...

State of A.P. Vs. Sol Back Bay Acqua Limited, Hyderabad

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD494; 2001(1)ALT602; 2001CriLJ1107

ORDER1. The respondent company herein, which is registered under the Companies Act 1956, is also the respondent in Company Petition No.182 of 1998. A creditor of the respondent-company filed the above Company Petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, praying that the respondent-company be wound up on the ground that the respondent-company is not able to pay the debts to its creditors. 2. Notice before admission was ordered in the above said Company Petition and during the pendency of the matter, on 14-3-2000, the learned Counsel for the respondent-company made a representation that the respondent-company was willing to make the payment as claimed by the petitioner, but sought some time to make the payment. In the circumstances, this Court recorded the said undertaking of the respondent-company and adjourned the matter till 31-3-2000, so as to enable the parties 'to work out some time schedule for payment of the amount'. The matter ap...

Vithaldas Vs. Union of India

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(6)ALD486; 2000(6)ALT304

ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. We should state at the threshold that this writ petition filed as a public Interest Litigation (PIL) admittedly by a relative of the eight persons against whom he wanted the Commissioner (Vigilance) Income Tax Department, Hyderabad to take action in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, is totally unjustified and vexatious apart from being totally vague. The petitioner except stating in his representation dated 5-11-1999 addressed to the Commissioner that thoseeight persons named by him in the representation have accumulated huge wealth and money and they are also involved in private money lending business has not chosen to furnish any details whatsoever. It is held and reiterated by this Court and the Apex Court that a probono public character who files PILs., has the responsibility of making necessary investigation in the first instance and to bring him findings to the notice of the concerned authorities before moving the constitutional Courts by...

State of A.P. Vs. Bhagya Lakshmi Hatcheries Pvt., Ltd., Hyderabad

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(6)ALD463; 2000(6)ALT679

ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. These lax revision cases arise out ofthe orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in a Batch of appeals. Hence they are disposed of by this common order.2. The Tribunal allowed the appeals holding that on-day-old chicks are liable to be exempted from sales tax by virtue of the exemption contained in G.O. Ms. No. 130, Revenue, dated 14-2-1989 wherein livestock is one of the items exempted, in exercise of powers conferred on the Governor by Section 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sates Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act')- Following the observations of the Supreme Court in Royal Hatcheries P. Ltd. v. State of A.P., 1994 (92) STC 239, the Tribunal held that the exemption was available to the assesses in respect of the relevant assessment years viz., 1988-89 to 1992-93. It is against this decision of the Tribunal; the State has preferred these revision cases.3. It may be stated that with effect from 27-8-1992, by virtue of the notification issued by the ...

P. Damodar Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2002]125STC16(AP)

S.R. Nayak, J.1. Rule nisi.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes and the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage with their consent.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that irrespective of the nature of the work awarded to the petitioner-contractor, the respondent-authorities deduct tax at source at the rate of 4 per cent on the basis of the instructions issued in memo dated February 24, 2000 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, R&B; Department and the circular memo dated July 7, 2000 issued by the Engineer-in-chief, Panchayat Raj Department. The work awarded to the petitioner involves 'excavation and lining of link canal from km. 0.650 to km. 1.475 between subsidiary reservoirs I and II of TGP main canal'.4. This Court in W.P. No. 5148 of 2000 and batch (Venigella Narayana Rao v. Engineer-in-Chief (R & B) [2002] 125 STC 14) opined that the respondent-authorities cannot deduct tax at the enhanced rates basing on th...

A. Dasa Kumar Vs. Smt. A. Sunanda

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALT447; II(2001)DMC229

ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. Heard. Perused the order under revision.2. By the order under revision passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, LA. No. 1 of 1999 filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for interim maintenance pending disposal of the O.P. and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses is partly allowed and the petitioner/husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/ - per month to the respondent /wife for maintaining herself and her children from the date of petition, and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent/wife towards litigation expenses. O.P. No. 63 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner/husband, wherein he prayed for decree of divorce against the respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty. The learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 21.12.1999 dismissed the O.P. on the ground of non-maintainability after having come to the conclusion that the petitioner/husband is a Christian and...