Andhra Pradesh Court August 2000 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.
Auto Rollex Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: [2001]122STC447(AP)
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. In this tax revision case, two questions are raised : (1) subjecting sale turnover of Rs. 3,61,895 representing the sales of parts/spare parts of rolling shutters to tax at 6 per cent instead of 4 per cent ; (2) restriction of labour charges on the fabrication and fixing of rolling shutters, which is treated as works contract, to Rs. 1,11,116 only by applying the percentage of deduction towards labour charges to 30 per cent.2. As regards the first item, the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal took the view that the items sold cannot be regarded as steel structurals, namely, angles, joints, channels or any other rolled sections and they have to be treated as general unclassified goods being parts/spare parts of rolling shutters. No exception can be taken to this finding. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the items such as angles, flats, sheets which are declared goods falling under entry 2(v) of the Third Schedule were sold and...
M. Chandrasekhar Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by Its Managing Director and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT307
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Harinath, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. The matter is taken up for final disposal at their request.2. Rule nisi.3. The following few facts may have to be noticed for the purpose of effective disposal of this writ petition.4. The petitioner herein was appointed as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation on 2-3-1979. He was declared unfit and forced to retire from service vide proceedings dt. 14-9-1992. The respondent-Corporation by an order dt. 18-12-1996 directed the reinstatement of the petitioner to the post of Conductor. On reinstatement he was posted to Mahaboobnagar Depot. The reinstatement itself was pursuant to the directions of this Court dt. 8-10-1996 in W.P.No. 8793 of 1994 directing the petitioner herein to undergo medical examination and basing upon the medical report, the authorities were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in acco...
Ch. Raji Reddy and others Vs. APSRTC, Sec'bad and another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD352; 2000(5)ALT157
ORDER1. 121 petitioners filed this writ petition by paying one set of Court fee. Office has taken an objection :'Please clarify as to bow this WP is maintainable by paying a single set of Court fee when there are 121 petitioners.'The Counsel has replied the objection in the following terms :'Last time we have filed two writ petitions by paying single Court fee and matter is numbered and posted before the Hon'ble Chief Justice Court. After hearing directing the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition by rising all relevant points and accordingly the two Writ Petition Nos.27132 of 1998 and 32450 of 1998 were withdrawn. Hence this WP fifed with all grounds. Therefore, this WP filed with permission of the Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Hence this WP may be numbered and post before Hon'ble Court for admission.'Office has sought orders from this Court as to whether single Court fee is to be paid or the individual Court fee has to be paid byeach petitioner.2. The respondents have iss...
Chintalapati Satyanarayana Raju Vs. A.P. Housing Board, Hyd. and Other ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD472
ORDER1. The Petitioner has challenged advertisement No.2322/EM-2/ EE(WD) 99, dated 15-12-1999 published in daily newspaper 'Eenadu' on 27th December, 1999 and also the subsequent allotment of houses to respondents 4 and 5. By this advertisement it was notified that 47 flats of various categories would be sold in Phase-III MIG Flat, Kukatpalli, Phase-III LIG flats, Kukatpalli, Phase-IV LIG flats Kukatpalli, Phase-IV MIG-A flats. The said notification invited applications from the applicants who intend to purchase such flats and houses. The notification stated that the houses would be sold on first come-first serve basis. It is stated that under Sections 70 and 71 of A.P. Housing Board Act, 1956 theGovernment has the power to make rules and regulations and the Government has issued regulations for the purpose of management, allotment and sale of various categories of houses. According to the petitioner, the houses in question are regulated by G.O. Ms. No.9, dated 21st January, 1975. Thes...
Jai Bharat Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Andhra Pradesh. State ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD743; 2000(5)ALT389
1. The petitioner is facing a suit filed by respondent Wakf Board before the Wakf Tribunal. He filed an application seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Tribunal has dismissed the application. Hence this revision. The only ground agitated before this Court is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the suit which has been filed before it.2. It is submitted that the petitioner society has purchased the land in Survey Nos.18/1 and 18/2 measuring Ac.9-11 guntas from the owners by sale deeds in the year 1981. The petitioner society had obtained the layout from the competent authorities for making the plots and the plots have been transferred in the names of the member of the society and 71 members have purchased the land and they are in possession of the said plots. Some of them have constructed houses and compound walls have also been erected. The respondent Board filed a suit being OS No.87 of 1999 claiming 2000 Sq. y...
Mohd GazaiuddIn Ahmed and Others Vs. Bhanwarlal, I.A.S., Dist. Collect ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD703; 2000(5)ALT411
ORDER1. This Court passed an order of status-quo on 25-8-1999. Thereafter an application came to be filed alleging disobedience of the order of this Court. Counter has beenfiled by Collector-respondent No.1 who says that the order was received by the respondent on 31-8-1999 he immediately communicated it to the executing agency. The work had in fact been taken up on 7-7-1999 much before filing of the writ petition. The order of this Court has not been violated at all. After receipt of the order no construction was made. The petitioner on the other hand has produced some photographs and has stated that even after the order of the Court the construction went on.2. Now, it is a disputed question whether the construction went on after the order of status quo was passed, or not. Therefore, it needs to be decided by leading evidence. However, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the respondent relies on a Judgment of Supreme Court in State of J& K v. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan and others, : (19...
Pithula Pathrudu Vs. Botta Chinna Rao and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1370; 2000(5)ALD737
1. This is an unfortunate case of motor accident injury wherein the appellant sustained brain injury and describing it as organic psychosis filed a claim petition under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.51,000/- both under pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:On 10-1-1990 at about 8.15 p.m. the injured appellant Pothula Patrudu along with some other persons started on a cycle to witness second show cinema in Swamy theatre, Thagarapuvalasa from their village Kapula Uppada. When they reached the garden of Katanpeta, a Metador Van bearing No.ADJ 2464 which was coming fromThagarapuvalasa towards Bheemili Road in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, dashed the cycle of the appellant and the appellant fell down on the road and sustained injuries on the left eyebrow, left chin, a severe contusion to the head and abrasions to both the knees of the legs. The petition...
R. Sambamurthy Vs. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Hyd. an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD51; 2000(6)ALT74; [2000(87)FLR902]
ORDER1. The writ petition is filed assailing the order of punishment passed bythe 2nd respondent-disciplinary authority dated 11-3-1997 as confirmed by the 3rd respondent-appellate authority on 29-1-1992.2. The petitioner, while he was working as an Officer in the State Bank of India, Payakaraopet branch (Visakhapatnam Region I), was served with a charge-sheet dated 8-9-1993 alleging certain charges under the Conduct Rules. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27-10-1993. Before the regular enquiry could commence, the petitioner made an application for furnishing certain documents. But, however, they were not furnished. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry and found the petitioner guilty of the charges mentioned in the 1st charge. But, however, with regard tothe 2nd charge, the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty. The enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 25-7-1996. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the disciplinary au...
Raghavendra Rice Mills Vs. Anant Kabra and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD779; 2000(5)ALT439
ORDER1.This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Fourth Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 29-10-1999 passed in IA No.1010 of 1999 in OS No.1845 of 1997 under which the application of the petitioner defendant under Order 37, Rule 3(5) CPC for leave to defend the suit was dismissed.2. The plaintiff filed a summary suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,47,325/-. Summons for judgment were served on the defendants upon which the defendants filed the petition in question for leave to defend the suit. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.1 used to supply rice and rice bran to the plaintiffs by taking advance and in the course of these transactions they became due in a sum of Rs.60,000/- by 6-7-1993. As the petitioner company was irregular in payment of the amounts, the plaintiff decided to discontinue the business with the petitioner and there was mutual agreement under which the defendants agreed to repay the balance ...
Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle Nirmal Vs. I. Devender Redd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD318; 2000(6)ALT334
ORDER1. The revisions and appeals arise out of an award dated 5-5-1991 passed by the Arbitrator and hence they are disposed of by a common judgment.2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of these revisions and appeals are set out as hereunder:CRF No.748 of 1995 has been filed by the revision petitioner-contractor against the judgment and decree in OS No.64 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli to the extent of the Court holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to ''pendents lite interest'. CMA No. 299 of 1995 has been filed by the appellant-contractor against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli dismissing OP No.33 of 1993 seeking to remit the matter back to the Arbitrator to the extent of claims not determined by the Arbitrator, CRP No.2293 of 1994 is revision filed by the State against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli in decreeing the suit OS No.64 of 1991 by making it 'Rule of the Court'. CMA No. 903 of 1994 has been fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »