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.
Md. Nayeem Khan Vs. Union Law Secretary, Government of India, New Delh ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD145; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)438; 2001(4)ALT666; I(2002)DMC686
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The petitioner herein has inter alia questioned the validity of Section 3(1)(d) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to 'the 1986 Act') and also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings dated in MC No.38 of 1995, CC No.916 of 1995 and CC No.62 of 1997 on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad as violative of Chapter XVII-B of Criminal Procedure Code under Sections 218 to 224 and also Section 26 of General Clauses Act.2. The petitioner married respondent No.4 on 16-4-1994. She was divorced by the petitioner on 28-8-1995. She also allegedly received Mehr and Iddat period amount of Rs.19,985/- from Qazi office and gave receipt therefore.3. She filed an application in September, 1995 purported to be under Section 3 of the 1986 Act before the second respondent which was marked as MC No.38 of 1995. Subsequently, cognizance of the offence was taken in the said case...
Sidhartha Academy of General and Technical Education, Sidharthnagar, V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD29
ORDERBILAL NAZKI, J. 1. It is submitted that the petitioner Academy is a charitable institution and is being run on the amounts donated by various persons and is not a profit making institution. It has granted a certificate under Section 80-G of the Income tax Act and the donations received by the Academy are exempt from payment of Income tax. It claims to be a premier educational institution engaged in rendering service to the society. In furtherance of its objects the petitioner had purchased lands in Vijayawada etc., and had constructed various buildings to house the educational institutions and hostels for imparting education. The petitioner academy owns certain lands situated at Vijayawada. The academy had already constructed a Girls hostel for the students of Sree Durga Malleswara Siddartha Mahila Kalasala. This building was constructed during theperiod 1984 to 1987 and in view of the increase in the students, to increase the hostel facilities, the academy had decided to increase...
Sree Nagurvali Talkies, Narsaraopet, Guntur District Vs. Government of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD24
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed praying for the issue of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in Memo No.G1. 61378/ General.A2/96-3, dated 16-6-1997 and the subsequent demand of the 3rd respondent dated 29-7-1997 issued under Section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act as illegal, null, void and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to endorse the reduction of seats in B-Form Licence of the petitioner theatre with effect from 24-4-1984 with 708 seats.2. The petitioner is a registered firm carrying on the business of screening thepictures in its theatre. Prior to 1984 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'), tax was being levied and collected on the actual sale of tickets without reference to the number of seats or the gross collection capacity of the theatre. After 1984, there was a change in the method of levy and colle...
Maharajahalakh Narayana Society of Arts and Science (Mansas) Fort, Rep ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALT737
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This revision is directed against an order made in I.A.No.732 of 1991 in O.S. No. 106 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam dated 29-11-1991.2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 106 of 1985 is the present revision petitioner. The plaintiff filed an application I.E. 732 of 1991 in O.S.No. 106 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam under Sec. 7-A of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982 herein after called as 'the Act' for brevity requesting the court to make over the suit to the Special Tribunal under the Act on the ground that on the allegations made in the plaint the provisions of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982 are attracted and hence the civil court cannot further proceed with the matter and the matter has to be transferred to the Special Tribunal under the Act. The court below instead of granting that relief, had dismissed the petition without costs and also had rejected the plaint under Or.7 R.11 (d)...
Bepari Shaik Peeran Vs. Kamalapuram Mahaboob Bi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2003(6)ALD31; 2002(6)ALT116
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the Courts below is the appellant. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit O.S. No. 4/85 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Proddatur for declaration of title relating to the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession and also for future mesne profits and for costs of the suit. Since the 2nd defendant died, her legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 3 to 10 by an order in I.A. No. 233/85, dated 16-8-1985. 2. On the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, Issues were settled and the evidence of PW-1 to PW-6 and DW-1 to DW-4 had been recorded and Exs.A-1 to A-26 and Ex.B-1 were marked and the Court of first instance after recording evidence had arrived at a conclusion that the gift deed Ex.A-1 does not satisfy the third ingredient of delivery of possession under the Muslim law and hence the said document is not valid and after recording certain other findings also apart from this fi...
Jupiter Rolling Shutters and Engineering Works Vs. State of Andhra Pra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALT367; [2001]124STC396(AP)
S. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This tax revision case is at the instance of the dealer/assessee against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 895 of 1989, dated April 20, 1993.2. The petitioner is a dealer engaged in the manufacturing of rolling shutters, collapsible gates, grills, etc. During the assessment year 1985-86, the assessing authority while framing the assessment granted exemption on the disputed turnover of Rs. 3,27,091, accepting the contention of the petitioner that the said turnover relates to receipts from works contract in supplying and fixing of shutters, grills, etc., for the period up to June 30, 1985. The said assessment order was revised by the Deputy Commissioner and withdrew the exemption and subjected the disputed turnover to tax, as according to him, the turnover relates to the sale of shutters, grills, etc., and not relates to the works contract. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.3. The...
Shaik Rahaman Vs. S. Ramayamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALT465
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against an order passed in E.P.No. 80 of 1995 in O.S.No. 13 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vizianagaram.2. The date of the order impugned is mentioned as 18-6-1996 in the grounds of revision, but however it is pointed out that the impugned order is dated 22-6-1996.3. The main contention of Sri Balaji representing Sri G. Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 22 C.P.C. are mandatory and after a lapse of two years when the decree holder intends to put the decree into execution notice should have been given and without issuing notice since the delivery warrant was issued, all the subsequent proceedings taken are void and non est in law and hence those proceedings are liable to be set aside. Though all the facts are not clear from the record Sri Balaji had narrated the facts ultimately leading to the delivery of the property. The revision p...
Kadali Pullayya Vs. Kadali Narasanna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALT8
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 22-8-1990 made in E.A.No. 18 of 1990 in O.S.No. 50 of 1974 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Razole.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: While taking execution for delivery of possession of the petition schedule property, delivery warrant was issued and however the delivery could not be effected since there was some obstruction and application for taking steps had been filed and it was ordered that the property should be delivered on 17-4-1990 and on that day the delivery warrant was returned unexecuted stating that one K. Pullaiah and his family members had obstructed the delivery on the ground that they had purchased these properties by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 14-5-1981 from the judgment debtors, the respondents 2 and 3 in the present revision. The third party objector who is the present revision petitioner also had filed a memo stating that he is not a par...
Sanghi Spinners Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(132)ELT565(AP)
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. The Writ Petitioner, a Company registered under the Companies Act, placed in a peculiar position of denial of jurisdiction both by the appellate authority under Section 35B and by the revisional authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'), approached this Court, initially praying for the issue of writ of mandamus declaring the Order No. 125/99 (H.III), dated 6-12-1999 of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) Hyderabad, [hereinafter referred to 'the Commissioner (Appeals)'], confirming the duty demanded in respect of seven AR4s mentioned in its order and also imposing the penalty of Rs. 2,000 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Later with the permission of this Court, the relief sought for was amended praying for the issue of Certiorari and to quash the order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to 'the CEGAT' or 'the Appellate Tribunal'), So...
Rahena @ Rehana Banu and Others Vs. G. Sai Kumar and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC670; 2003ACJ32; 2001(5)ALD8
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. Appellants herein are the claimants in OP No.132 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Court, Rangareddy District, who instituted the above OP seeking a compensation of Rs.7 lakhs for the death of one Mohd. Qasim Jeelani, who was working as a Senior Assistant in Central Excise Department, in a motor accident that took place on 22-1-1994 around 4.00 p.m., near Sushma Theatre at Vanasthalipuram Cross Roads in Hyderabad.2. The 1st appellant is the wife, appellants 2 to 4 are the minor children and the 5th appellant is the mother of the deceased. According to these appellants-claimants, the deceased Qasim Jeelani wasriding the luna along with one Venkateshwarlu as a pillion rider and while he was crossing the road towards left near Sushma Theatre on 22-1-1994 at about 4.30 p.m., the lorry bearing No.AET 2388 driven with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the luna resulting in multi...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »