Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Amancharla Gopal Krishna Rao and Another Vs. Vemuru Padmawathi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD314
ORDER1. The CRP is filed against the orders of the learned Rent ControlAppellate Authority-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in CMA No.21 of 1995 and Cross-Objections setting aside the order of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Nellore in RCC No.32 of 1986.2. The appellants are the tenants. It is necessary to narrate certain events which led to filing of the Rent Control Case. Originally one Smt. Vanajakashi was the owner of the demised premises and her husband Ratniah was looking after the premises. It was leased out to the father of the appellants. After the death of their father, the appellants came into possession and continued to be the tenants under Smt. Vanajkshi. But, however, an application was filed by Smt. Vanajakshi in RCC No.28 of 1984 for eviction of the appellants on the ground of wilful default. The appellants-tenants also filed an application in RCC No.37 of 1984 seeking permission to deposit the rents. While RCC No,28 of 1984 pending, the original owner...
Yandapali China Subbarao and Another Vs. Sri Bhimalingeswaraswamivari ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD330; 2000(6)ALT591
1. It appears that the petitioner has filed a suit which is pending before Junior Civil Judge, Kowur. He filed an application IA No.974 of 1998 for interim injunction in which the Court issued an urgent notice. The petitioner, aggrieved of this order filed an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was rejected on the ground that, no appeal was maintainable in view of Order 43, Rule 1(r) of Civil Procedure Code, whereby appeal would lie only against order passed under Rule 1, Rule 2-A, Rule 4 or Rule 10 of Order 39. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that issuance of notice in an application under Order 39 was not an order which is appealable under Order 43 CPC.2. This Court entertained the revision, issued an order of stay and a vacate stay petition has been filed. The learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length, and hence the revision itself is disposed of.3. The only question which needs to be considered is, whether issuance of notice in an application ...
Coromandal Cement Factory Employees Union Vs. Deputy Registrar of Trad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD341; 2000(6)ALT126; [2000(87)FLR964]; (2001)ILLJ947AP
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner-Union by the 1st respondent through proceedings in Rc.No.B2/Pdl.59/90 dated 19-10-1992 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.2. It is submitted by the petitioner -Union that it was registered as F-435 and a certificate was issued by the Registrar. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has recognised the petitioner-Union as a representative Union since it has secured majority of votes in the secret ballot election held on 23-6-1988.3. It is further submitted by the petitioner that it had been submitting the returns in Form-E every year without fail. For the year 1990 also the petitioner has submitted the annual returns before 30-4-1991 in duplicate in Form-E. But, the 1st respondent has issued notice to the petitioner expressing the intention of cancellation of registration of the petitioner for its failure to submit the...
Pratapaneni Papa Rao and ors. Vs. the Government of A.P. Rep. by Its P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD(Cri)562; 2000(5)ALT667
ORDER1. The petitioners herein have filed the present writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents herein to produce the petitioners herein before this Court and they may be directed to release the petitioners forthwith after declaring that the detention of the petitioners is illegal and void.2. The writ affidavit filed by the 1st petitioner herein shows that he is a life convict, who was tried by the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam in Sessions Case No.121 of 1988 for the offences punishable under sections 148, 452 and 302 read with section 149 IPC along with 13 other accused. Some of them were convicted and some of them were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge in the said case. In all 14 prisoners were accused in the Sessions Case against whom the order of sentence of life imprisonm...
T. Krishnaswamy Vs. Maniyamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD290; 2000(6)ALT211
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31-8-1999 passed by the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in IA No.612 of 1999 in IA No. 1931 of 1996 in OS No.1667of 1989 under which the said IA No.612 of 1999 purported to have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in representing the application for restoring IA No.1931 of 1996, which was dismissed for default, has been dismissed.2. Neither the memorandum of civil revision petition nor the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge contains the necessary details as to for what purpose the IA No.1931 of 1996 was filed. However, on behalf of the petitioner, an affidavit has been filed in this Court giving certain particulars leading to this civil revision petition.3. It appears the petitioner herein has filed OS No.1667 of 1989 before the X Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of certain property. A ...
Co-operative Tenant Farming Society Malkapur Ltd. and Another Vs. Join ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD108
Judgment1. In this writ petition the Order of the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Nalgonda dated 29-7-1998 passed under Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 is assailed.2. The petition has a long chain of events spreading over nearly half a century.3. The 1st petitioner is the Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act comprising of small fanners. It was registered and formed for the purpose of espousing and safeguarding the rights of the members in respect of the small extents of lands held by them at Malkapur village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District.4. It is the case of the petitioner that Malkapur village was an erstwhile Jagir village held by Jagirdar one Mirza Maqsood Ahmed Khan. He used to collect the land revenue being Jagirdar from the members of the petitioner society and he did not have any rights except collecting the revenue from the members of the petitioner society on ...
Gara Padmanabham Vs. Neti Narasimha Sastry and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)ALD446; 2000(6)ALT364
ORDER1. The petitioner is the plaintiffin OS No.5 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Ongole. It was filed for specific performance of an oral agreement. He filed this revision petition aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial Court in IA No.105 of 2000 wherein the Court below refused to summon one Y. V. Seshaiah a practising Advocate, as Court witness.2. Heard the learned Counsel of both the sides.3. From the factual background of the case, it revealed that the petitioner herein.i.e., the plaintiff in the suit was orally inducted into the suit schedule premises some time in the year 1993. The respondents initiated proceedings for the eviction of the petitioner/plaintiff from the suit premises and ultimately succeeded and taken the possession of the property. Pending eviction proceedings, the petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of the oral agreement of sale entered into by the parties in July, 1993. in the pleadings, the petitioner categorically stat...
Transport Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: [2001]116TAXMAN811(AP)
Reddy, J.In this petition filed under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner-assessee sought reference of the following questions to the High Court for its consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the inclusion of the interest under section 214 as income for the assessment year 1983-84 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest under section 214 which is treated as income, is assessable in entirety for the assessment year 1983-84 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the omission to include the interest of Rs. 2,41,270 as income for the assessment year 1983-84 could be said to be a mistake apparent from record warranting rectification of assessment under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The Tribunal following the decision of this court in CIT v. N.J. Dadabai : [1978]115ITR317(AP) held t...
Suguna Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (App ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD756; 2000(5)ALT417
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J. 1. The main question that arises for our consideration and decision in this writ petition is whether the Central Warehousing Corporation is obliged in law to release the goods in question stored in Inland Container Depot (ICD), Hyderabad to the petitioner Company without payment of storage and demurrage charges by force of the Final Order No.1568/99 dated 29-6-2000 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), South Zonal Bench at Madras, wherein it was held that the petitioner-Company is not responsible for the detention of storage of goods from 16-10-1996 and as per the Certificate for Clearance dated 5-10-1999 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Container Freight Station, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.2. The background facts out of which the above question arises for decision be firstly noted in brief. They, are: Thepetitioner-Company during the course of their trade activity, negotiated with M/s. Techno Imports and Exports, Dubai for...
Vbc Ferro Alloys Limited Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)ALD626; 2000(5)ALT340
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J 1. A 'power guzzler' invokes the extraordinaryjurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to charge the energy consumed by the petitioner's ferro silicon unit at Rudraram village in Medak District at HT Category-I tariff rates instead of HT Category-III tariff rates after declaring the inclusion of item No.9 in HT Category-III by BP Ms. No.353 (Commercial) dated 15-4-1989 and by BPMs. No.298, dated 30-3-1988 as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 2. Before adverting to the question that may fall for consideration, it may be necessary to notice the various averments and allegations made by the petitioner and the stand taken by the respondents in reply to those averments and allegations. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a manufacturer of Ferro Silicon and set u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »