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.
Putta Lakshmaiah Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-collector, Kandukur ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD123; 2001(5)ALT98
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. Appellants in all these appeals are the claimants in OP Nos. 28 to 33 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kandukur. Since a common question of law is raised, all these appeals are disposed of by this common order.2. Certain extents of lands of these appellants were acquired by the Government for providing house sites to the members of the weaker sections of the society. Though certain amount of compensation was offered to these appellants by the Land Acquisition Officer the appellants-claimants received the same under protest and sought reference of the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') to the civil Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. Thus, the claim of the appellants-claimants for enhancement of compensation was referred to the civil Court - Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kandukur in OP Nos.28 to 33 of 1995.3. When these OPs fell for consideration before the civil Court below, the As...
K. Pamulu Vs. Collector and Dist. Election Authority and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALT389
Satyabrata Sinha, C.J.1. Although an interesting question has been raised in this writ petition by Mr. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner questioning rejection of nomination of the writ petitioner on misinterpretation of Section 19 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, yet, having due regard to the provisions contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, we cannot interfere with the matter in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. It is not in dispute that notification for election has been issued on 22-6-2001. The impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been passed on 1-7-2001. Although, a prima facie case has been made out, having regard to the limitation of this Court's power, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. Article 243-O of the Constitution reads thus:'Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters.Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,..(a) the vali...
Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by G.M., S.C. Rly. and ors. Vs. K.B. Joseph ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALT401a
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This Writ Application involves a question as to whether only because a contractor accepts final payment, the same by itself disentitles him to take recourse to arbitration clause.2. The parties entered into an Agreement on 20-7-1996 as regards the construction of Relay, Battery, Equipment and Generator rooms at Dupadu, Ulindakonda, Veldurthi and Bogolu stations between Kurnool town and Dronachellam stations.3. The fact that differences and disputes arose between the parties as regards performance of their respective contractual obligations thereunder is not in dispute.4. It is also not in dispute that there had been certain subsidiary agreements.5. According to the petitioner, special conditions of contract would prevail over the general conditions of contract and no claim can be entertained on the general conditions of contract.6. An Arbitration Application was filed by the first respondent herein purportedly under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation A...
Colonel D.D. Pawar, C-25415-a Vs. Commander Hq Andhra Sub-area, Secund ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD56; 2001(5)ALT52
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. A common question as to the interpretation of Section 122 of the Army Act, 1950 ('the Act' for brevity) falls for consideration in both these appeals and hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The appellant in Writ Appeal No.687 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the first appellant) is a Colonel in Indian Army whereas the appellant in Writ Appeal No.688 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the second appellant) is a Captain. They filed writ petitions being WPNo.3859 of 1999 and 6583 of 1999 respectively challenging the order of the second respondent directing that the officers be tried by General Court Martial in relation to an offence an contemplated by the Act. The main contention before the learned single Judge is that the General Court Martial ordered by the second respondent is barred by limitation in terms of Section 122 of the Act. The learned single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions placing reliance on Rule 53 of the Army Rules 19...
Venkateswara Chemicals Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALT347; [2001]124STC515(AP)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J 1. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions arc engaged in the manufacture and sale of poultry feeds supplements and medicine etc. In these writ petitions, they have assailed the constitutionality of the incorporation of the new Entry 80-A in the First Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, for short 'the APGST Act'; by Amendment Act 27 of 1996 with effect from 1-8-1996. In WP No. 12121 of 1998, the petitioner has also sought for a direction that the poultry feed supplements are taxable only at the rate of 4% with effect from 1-8-1996. The constitutionality of the impugned Entry is assailed on the ground that it is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.2. The pleading of the petitioner as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, to state briefly, is as follows: The petitioners are proprietorship concerns or limited companies incorporated under the provisions of th...
R. Kamaraju and Others Vs. Government of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD317; 2001(5)ALT121
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. The petitioners, eight in number, are the agriculturists of A. Mallavaram village, Gollaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioners own lands in Mallavaram and Ramanakkapet and other villages. According to the petitioners, the lands owned by them are rainfed lands and they are not irrigated by the public irrigation sources. Nevertheless, the petitioners complain that without issuing any notification, as contemplated underSection 4 of the A.P. Water Tax Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'), which is a condition precedent to fix liability of tax on the agriculturists, coercive steps have been taken forcefully to recover the tax. So alleging the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioners herein pray that this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent...
T. Uma Rani Vs. Licensing Officer, (Regional Transport Officer) Khamma ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD237
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J. 1. The short question that arises for decision is whether consequent upon the quashing of the G.O. Ms. No.175, dated 28-3-1985 by this Court by its order dated 29-12-1987 delivered in WP No.9615 of 1986, the petitioner's vehicle is liable tobe taxed in terms of G.O. Ms. No.581, dated 31-12-1983 or in terms of G.O. Ms.No.735, dated 12-8-1983.2. This question arises in the following factual background.The petitioner is the registered owner of contract carriage bearing Registration No.TMN 8208, subsequently reassigned AAH 8118. The Government of A.P. issued G.O. Ms. No.581, dated 31-12-1983 fixing the rates of tax on contract carriages on flat basis without providing any concessional rates for short periods at the rate of Rs.275/-per seat per quarter. The validity of the said G.O. was assailed before this Court by the petitioner and others in WP No.11811 of 1984, During the pendency of that writ petition, by virtue of the interim direction issued by this Court to the L...
Sheetal Refineries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer (intellige ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALT372; [2002]125STC86(AP)
S.R. Nayak, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the provisional attachment notice No. CCT's JC(CT)Enf./CTO-V/10/2000-2001, dated 20.3.2001 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), No. V, Enforcement Wing, Nampally, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein attaching the bank account of the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 17B of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, for short `the APGST Act'.2. To state the case of the petitioner in brief, the petitioner's assessment under the provisions of the APGST Act for the years 2000-2001 is pending. Even though the year is ripe for final assessment by the end of March, 2001, the 1st respondent has proposed provisional assessment by notice dated 27.2.2001 for the months of August to November, 2000 to raise the arbitrary demand of about Rs.19 Lakhs. The issue involved in the assessment is relating to the claim of set off made by the petitioner on non-refined su...
Koneti Lakshmi Thulasamma Vs. Gangavaram Veera Raghava Reddi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT180
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. The petitioner, who is the defendant, is aggrieved against the orders in I.A.No. 1578 of 2000 in O.S.No. 413/99 dated 29-12-2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah, dismissing the application purported to have been filed under Order 26 Rule 10-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for sending a document viz., Sale deed dated 18-6-1992 to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signatures of the petitioner and her husband K. Seshachari with the admitted signatures.2. In brief, in a suit filed for eviction, the case of the petitioner is that the signatures on the said document do not belong to the petitioner and her husband and that they are forged as if they are the attestors of the said document. The Court below after contest and after hearing both the sides, dismissed the application on the ground that no purpose would be served by any such exercise and further no such application having been filed by the petitione...
M.V. Govindappa Vs. R.C. Parvathamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALT746
ORDERR. Ramanujam, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur in I.A.No. 645 of 2000 in O.S.No. 43 of 1993 dated 23-1-2001 dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. The petitioner herein is the 8th defendant in O.S.No. 43 of 1993. That suit was instituted by the respondents herein who are none other than the sisters of the petitioner herein for partition of the suit schedule property. The petitioner contested that suit for some time. Thereafter, he allowed the suit to be decreed ex parte against him on 29-7-1998. Long time thereafter, he filed I.A.No. 645 of 2000 seeking to condone the delay of 685 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree dated 29-7-1998 passed against him. The case of the petitioner is that from the date of service of summons in the suit, plaintiffs 1 and 2 are making efforts for amicable settlement of the suit outside the Court and believing their represe...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »