Andhra Pradesh Court April 2001 Judgments

M.R. Gopalakrishna Reddy and Others Vs. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALD274; 2001(2)ALT672

ORDER1. The petitioners in the instant writ petition challenge the proceedings in ROC No.POl/2080/AEO(P)ATML/81, dated 20-10-2000 on the file of the first respondent. The petitioners accordingly pray for issuanceof a writ of mandamus declaring the said proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners seek consequential directions to provide alternative accommodation before dispossessing them from premises bearing No.1/67 in North Mada Street, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 2. It may be necessary to notice relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition : One Vyasa Raja Mutt is admittedly the owner of the structures bearing D.No.1/67 in North Mada Street, Tirumala, Chittoor District (hereinafter referred to as 'the said premises'). The same has been acquired by way of a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 29-4-1987 and published in A.P. Gazette dated 25-5-1987. The p...

P. Venkamma Vs. Sayana Venkata Rathnam and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALD518; 2001(3)ALT447

ORDER1. The present civil revision petition will not retain me any longerinasmuch as it can be disposed of on the question of its maintainability.2. The revision petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 30-11-2000 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole in EP No.513 of 1998 in OS No.5 of 1990. The execution petition was filed under Order 21, Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'the code') seeking delivery of the property which is the subject-matter of OS No.5 of 1990. The revision petitioner who is the fourth respondent in the execution petition sought to resist that application on the premise that she was a third party and not being a party to the suit in OS 5 of 1990 as she was in possession of the subject-matter of the suit property independently in her own right cannot be ordered to be removed from her possession. In fact when execution petition was filed seeking execution of the decree passed in OS No.5 of 1990 against the judgment debtors therei...

M.R.S. Maha Lakshmi Vs. Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary, R ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALD652; 2001(3)ALT96

ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. In this writ petition, writ of certiorari is sought to quash the demand notice dated 28-2-2000 in R.No.6432/A3/96 issued by the Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, the 1st respondent herein demanding payment of tax of Rs.87,500/- for the quarter ending 30-6-1997 for the vehicle bearing registration No.TN0l/N-27 and for consequential direction to the 1st respondent to refundthe tax of Rs.29,167/- paid under protest on 2-5-1997.2. The petitioner is the owner of the subject motor vehicle and the said vehicle is covered by All India Tourist Permit No.TVP/ 13/99 valid upto 4-2-2001. The petitioner on 31-12-1996 submitted a stoppage report to the 1st respondent informing that the bus was stopped from 31-12-1996 for carrying out certain repairs. When the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to conduct surprise verification of stoppages reported by the owners of the vehicles covered by All India Tourist P...

M. Anjaneyulu Naidu and Another Vs. Umapathi Naidu and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALD773; 2001(4)ALT30

ORDER1. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, dated 30-3-2001, in IA No.212 of 2001 in OS No.207 of 2001 appointing Advocate-Commissioner for auctioning the sugarcane crop on the plaint scheduled land, the petitioners (defendants) filed this civil revision petition.2. Heard both sides.3. The factual background of this case is that there is one temple of Lord Vinayaka Swamy in the village Battuvandlavooru. And the said temple has got some immovable properties. As per the version of parties, the said temple is a private temple and that the poojary was looking after the affairs of the said temple. As per the version of the respondents herein, one Perumal Reddy was the tenant of these lands. When the Poojary sold the lands to the petitioners who are husband and wife to each other, the said Perumal Reddy filed ATC No.2000 on 4-9-2000 along with IA No. 1236 of 2000. To prove his possession the said Perumal Reddy filed third party affidavit givenby ...

N. Chandramouleswara Reddy Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisit ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(3)ALD690; 2001(3)ALT556

ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1st February, 2001 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in EP No.62 of 2000 in OP No.2397 of 1980.2. The petitioner is the decree holder in whose favour an award was passed by the civil Court in OP No.2397 of 1981 on 14th December, 1988. The execution petition is filed by the petitioner/claimant under Order XXI, Rules 22, 43 and 77 of the Code of Civil Procedure to attach and sell the schedule properties for the realisation of the EP, amount. According to the petitioner/ claimant he was paid the entire amount of compensation except the additional amount of 12% awarded under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. That was resisted by the respondent /Special Deputy Collector, who contested the claim of the petitioner/ claimant on the ground that the petitioner/ claimant is not entitled for the additional market value provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act as the acquisition- as well as the passing of the ...

Puvvada Bhaskara Rao (Died) by Lrs and Another Vs. Tax Recovery Office ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(4)ALD62; 2001(4)ALT547

ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgmentand decree dated 26-7-1999 passed in OS No.42 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that Rule 9 of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act') is not attracted in view of the bar contained under Rule 86 and Sections 224 and 293 of the Act.2. The plaintiff is the appellant herein, who filed the suit to set aside the summaryorder dated 16-12-1988 in OP 165/80-81 passed by the first defendant/Tax Recovery Officer, Visakhapatnam holding that the plaintiff is resident of Vizianagaram and is an assesses during the year 1970-71 vide file No.710 on the file of the Tax Recovery Officer. The Income Tax Officer issued a certificate under Section 222 of the Act against the plaintiff to realise the arrears oftax. The said tax was due from the benami business made by the first plaintiff in the name of N.H. Rao & Company and he disclosed the said benami b...

K.P. Balaswamy Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(4)ALD160

ORDER1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Murthy, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf ofthe respondents, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner had not questioned the order of removal from service, we are of the opinion that the question of issuing a direction by this Court upon the respondents to grant pension on compassionate grounds does not arise. We are also ofthe opinion that no relief can be granted only on sympathy and on humanitarian grounds, which is contrary to law. This aspect of the matter has been considered in Ashok Saha v. State of West Bengal, Cal.LT 1999 (2) 1, wherein it was held:'14. The said decision therefore, is also distinguishable on facts. On the otherhand there are series of decisions wherein the Supreme Court has clearly laid down the law that a pupil who is not entitled to appear in the examination should not be allowed to do so in violation of the statutory regulation. Reference in this connection, may be made to A....

P. Yesubabu and anr. Vs. State of A.P., Rep., by P.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)452; 2002CriLJ1291

Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. The appellants herein were A-1 and A-2 in Sessions Case No. 313 of 1998, which was decided by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada. They were tried for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. On evidence the learned Judge held that the offence against both the accused was proved and therefore both of them were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for six months. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the accused-appellants herein have filed the present appeal.2. The gravamen of the charge against the accused-appellants herein was that on 3-08-1998 at about 3-00 a.m. in the sugarcane garden near F.K. Palem Centre, the accused did commit the murder of one Police Constable named Eelugubanti Vara Prasad, attached to Pithapuram Police Station, by catching hold of his neck and pushing him down into Jeebudoddi Irrigation drain c...

Puvvada Bhaskara Rao Vs. Tax Recovery Officer

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2001]117TAXMAN659(AP)

Ghulam Mohammed, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26-7-1999 passed in O.S. No. 42 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that rule 9 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is not attracted in view of the bar contained under rule 86 of the Second Schedule and sections 224 and 293 of the Act.2. The plaintiff is the appellant herein, who filed the suit to set aside the summary order dated 16-12-1988 in O.P. No. 165 of 1980-81 passed by the first defendant/Tax Recovery Officer, Visakhapatnam, holding that the plaintiff is resident of Vizianagaram and is an assessee during the year 1970-71 vide file No. 710 on the file of the TRO. The Income Tax Officer issued a certificate under section 222 of the Act against the plaintiff to realise the arrears of tax. The said tax was due from the benami business made by the first plaintiff in ...

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. D.G.K. Murthy, Principal, V.R. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. Aggrieved by the order in C.D. No. 553/1998 dated 29.9.1999 made by the District Forum, Nellore, the opposite party filed this appeal. This fact lie in a narrow compass. The respondent/complainant took out a joint life insurance policy No. 45972783 on 20.3.1984 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under Salary Saving Scheme. Both himself and his wife were Lecturers in V.R. College, Nellore at that time. The complainant had given authorisation on the same day to the Principal of the College to enable him to deduct a premium of Rs. 330.60 Ps. from his salary. The premiums were received regularly upto June, 1993. Thereafter there was default continuously. 2. It may be mentioned that the complainant availed of first loan facility of Rs. 4,600/- on 12.11.1987 and subsequently another loan facility on 24.2.1990 for a sum of Rs. 15,900/-. Of course the policy was pledged before the appellant as it appears that the loan was sanctioned against the security of the policy...