Andhra Pradesh Court July 2001 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.
Yella Simhachalam Vs. Siripuram Somulu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD469; 2001(5)ALT235
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. The revision is directed against an order made in IA No. 784 of 1985 in OS No. 133 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif, Srugavarapukota.3. The facts in brief are as follows: The second defendant, the subsequent purchaser in the litigation is the revision petitioner. The first defendant sold the property under an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and the plaintiff had instituted a suit OS No. 133 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Srungavarapukota for specific performance and the suit was decreed on 15-11-1978 granting two months time to deposit the remaining sale consideration. The second defendant had carried the matter in appeal A.S. No. 151 of 1978 on the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam and the appeal was dismissed on 13-2-1981 granting two months time and the respondent-plaintiff had not deposited the amount even within time granted by the appellate Court. As per record, it appears that IA Nos. 252 to 255 of...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Palaniappa Dyeing Unit
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN687(AP)
Satyabrata Sinha, C.J.1. The applicant has filed this application for grant of leave to appeal to Supreme Court of India in terms of Section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The factual matrix of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The applicant filed an application before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal) seeking reference to this Court, the following questions for its opinion:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that further enquiries were required to sustain the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even in a case where revised return was filed. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the ITAT that there was no material on record for the asst. year 1985-86 to show that the purchases made by the assessee from the said four parties were bogus, is not baseless and perverse. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in de...
Pachpalleaxmana Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC646
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 6.11.1992 in Sessions Case No.84 of 1992 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District in convicting the appellant under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused and his wife by name Venkata Ramana are the residents of Huzurnagar; and ever since the date of their marriage, the accused used to ill-treat her; their marriage has been taken place about 11 years back; and the accused used to take liquor and beat her; and the accused also used to borrow amounts from others and failed to repay the same; and the creditors used to come and demand for return of money; and when the deceased Venkata Ramana asked the accused to mend his behaviour, he used to beat her and ill-treate...
Kanaka Durga Winres Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALT258
S.R. Nayak, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special G.P. for Taxes.2. In this special appeal, the question that is required to be decided at the threshold is whether the revisional order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the 1st respondent herein dated 4.6.1998 was in conformity with the principles of natural justice and fair play in action and Rule-58 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules (for short the 'APGST Rules). If we find that there was infraction of the principles of natural justice and Rule-58 of the APGST Rules, there is no need to for us to take up the adjudication on merits. In that view of the matter, we proceed to consider the threshold question.3. The appellant is an assessee on the rolls of the respondent. The assessment of the appellant-assessee for the assessment year 1992-93 under the APGST Act was taken up for revision under section 20(1) of the APGST Act by the respondent by issuing a show cause notice dated 1...
V.N. Reddy and anr. Vs. Indo Burmah Petrolem Corporation, Rep., by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT604
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. The sixth respondent is admittedly the owner of the plot in question. It is alleged that the sixth respondent obtained a sanctioned plan from the third respondent to set up a petroleum bunk i.e., the first respondent. It is alleged that being a highly placed person, the sixth respondent used his influence to get the necessary permissions enabling the first respondent to set up a filling station.2. The main contention of the petitioners is that plot No.730 is a residential plot and, therefore, the same cannot be used for any non-residential purpose. Reliance has been placed on the bye-laws of the fifth respondent-society. This Court issued notices to the respondents on 24.1.2001 and the respondents have since filed necessary counter-affidavits denying all the allegations.3. Mr. Muralinarayan Bung, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the Members of the 5th respondent-society. He also submits that the permission granted by the Municipal Co...
C. Jayalakshmi Vs. Joint Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALT404
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition challenges the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Chittoor dated 2-9-2000 whereunder the revision preferred by the petitioner against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer has been dismissed. The petitioner impugns the legality and propriety of the said order.2. The petitioner claims to be a houseless poor person. It is her case that she applied for and obtained patta of a house site in plot No. 19 situated in Sy. No. 12 in the village accounts of Akkarampalli in Chandragiri Taluk and she is in possession of the same since 7-8-1985. The petitioner claims to have constructed the house in the said plot. The fourth respondent who is no other than the mother of the petitioner also applied for and obtained patta of a house site in the same survey number. The petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the fourth respondent in O.S.No. 322 of 1990 on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif, T...
Makam Venkatesh and ors. Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Dist. Collector and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALT19
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur in I.A. No. 1300/2000 in LA: No. 381/1999 in A.S. No. 56 of 1999 refusing to reissue the warrant to locate petition 'A' to 'D' schedule properties and measure correctly with reference to FMB or village sketch with the assistance of Deputy Inspector of Survey, RDO's office, the present revision is filed.2. Initially acceding to the request of the petitioner, the Court below appointed an Advocate-Commissioner for the parties in I.A. No. 381/1999 and the Advocate-Commissioner in his report stated that as FMB or village sketch was not provided by the parties, he could not come to the correct conclusion regarding the measurement i.e., width of the road at point to point. Having come to know about the report, the petitioners filed the I.A. No. 1300/2000 seeking re-issuance of the warrant for identification of the properties and measure the land with reference to Field Measurement Book with the assist...
Nizamabad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. K. Bhimsen Reddy ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ929AP
1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the learned single Judge was right in directing the appellant to avail of the statutory appeal available to it under the provisions of Section 48(3) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The question that fell for consideration before the learned single Judge was as to whether the date of birth of the respondent was October 13, 1940 or October 13, 1943.3. It appears that by reason of a direction issued by the State Government holding that the date of birth of the workman is October 13, 1940, his services have been terminated. The workman, however, contends that his date of birth is October 13, 1943 and not October 13, 1940.4. Mr. Koka Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that such a question could not have been arisen for consideration before the appellate authority and in support of the said, contention the learn...
G. Siva Prasada Reddy Vs. M. Thippa Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALT18
ORDERR. Ramanujam, J.1. As common question of law and fact arises for consideration in these revision petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Revision petitioner therein is the defendant in O.S. Nos. 103, 106; 104, 107 and 105 of 1999 respectively on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda. In those suits, the petitioner-defendant herein, filed I.A. Nos. 279, 282, 280, 282 and 281 of 2000 respectively, under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking rejection of the plaints on the ground that the reliefs sought for therein are barred by limitation. Those applications were dismissed by the learned junior Civil Judge by separate orders. Against those orders, the present revision petitions are filed.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, strenuously, contended that the learned Junior Civil Judge has erred in dismissing the applications, in his submission,, the Court, below ought to have framed a preliminary) issue re...
A. Raji Reddy Vs. Govt. of A.P., Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment De ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALT46
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This application is directed against a judgment dated 3-5-2000 passed by the A.P. State Administrative Tribunal whereby and whereunder the petitioner's original application was dismissed. The question that arose before the learned Tribunal was as to whether the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer was not bound to state reasons which impelled him to differ with the finding of the enquiry officer. The learned Tribunal referred to Rule 21(4) of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules and inter alia held:'A reading of Rule (2) and (3) of Rule 21 makes it crystal clear that the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer can only impose a minor punishment referred in Clause (i) to (v) of Rule 9, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 22. Rule 22(e) makes it crystal clear that consulting the Commission is a must where such consultation is necessary. Therefore, i...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »