Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
E. Satyavathi Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur Dis ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD629
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. The application ofthe petitioner wherein he sought refund of tax for the month of June, 1993 in respect of contract carriage bus bearing No. AP-02/ T.0114 was rejected by the Regional Transport Officer, Ananthapur by his proceedings in Rc. No. 4228/A3/94 dated 23-12-1994. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity of the same.2. Heard the Counsel for the 3. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the Regional Transport Officer on the ground that though the petitioner filed stoppage report on 31-5-1993 stating that she stopped the contract carriage with effect from 31-5-1993 and kept near her Branch Office, Bukkapatnam, she did not surrender the tax token issued for the quarter ending 30-6-1993 along with the stoppage intimation as required underthe rules. Condition (a) of the G.O. Ms. No. 82, Tr. R & B (Tr. 11), dated 26-3-1980 reads:'(a) The tax licence and the certificate of registration shall be surrendered along with the report of intimation of...
Maddisetti Venkata Rathnamma (Died) by Lrs. Vs. Pasupuleti Radhakrishn ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD56; 2001(6)ALT174
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This letters patent appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in AS No. 1729/83 dated 28-7-1992 reversing the judgment in OS No.190/72 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur dated 23-6-1983.2. The plaintiff in the suit and the respondent in the appeal is the appellant in the present letters patent appeal and 2nd defendant-appellant is the 1st respondent and 1st defendant is the 2nd respondent and since the appellant died, in CMP No.10274 of 1996, appellants 2 to 6 were brought on record. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.3. The plaintiff tiled OS No.190 of 1972 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and to allot one such share and a preliminary decree was passed on 14-2-1977 in respect of item Nos.2 and 3 and the suit was dismissed as far as Item No.1 of the plaint schedule is concerned. The 2nd de...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ideal Engineers
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(AP)471; [2001]251ITR743(AP)
ORDEROrder passed by Tribunal under section 254(2)Catch Note:Under provision of section 256, a reference may be made to High Court on a question of law that arises out of any order of Tribunal i.e., to say even an order made under section 254(2), is competent to reference under sections 256.Held:Section 256 empowers the assessee as well as the revenue 'to require the Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of' an order passed under section 254. Section 254(1) states that the Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. Thus section 254(1), empowers the Tribunal to pass orders not only on the appeal before it but also upon such applications as are made in the appeal and it specifies that, before doing so, it shall hear both the parties to the appeal. Section 254(2) empowers the Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record and amend any order passed by it under ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Praga Tools Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR813(AP)
S. Ananda Reddy, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, Hyderabad, referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), arising out of its common order in I.T.A. Nos. 842 to 847 of 1979, dated August 11, 1990, for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1972-73 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that an order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be passed to give effect to the law laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court albeit in another case?'2. The assessee is a public limited company, engaged in the manufacture of precision machine tools. The assessee-company entered into collaboration agreements with foreign companies for technical know-how in the form of designs, drawings, etc., in respect of certain machines manufactured by it.3. In resp...
Hanumanthu Rama Rao Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD(Cri)522; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)317
V. Eswaraiah, J.1. These Criminal Appeals are filed against common judgment dated 29/12/1995 in S.C.No.83/1995 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. The appellant in Crl.A.No.80/96 is accused No.1 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.92/96 is accused No.2 in S.C.No.83/1995. Accused No.1 is found guilty of the offences under Section 363, 376(2)(a), 419 and 506(2) of IPC. Accused No.2 is found guilty of the offences under Sections 363, 376, 506(2) of IPC. A1 and A2 are sentenced for the offence under Section 363 to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months. For the offence committed under Section 376(2)(a), A1 is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.8,000/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 2 years and for the offence under Section 419, Simple Imprisonment for one year. Both the accused were sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonme...
M. Manik Reddy and anr. Vs. M. Anasuya Devi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALT367
B. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. These three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. While C.M.A. Nos. 2671 and 2672 of 2000 are filed against the common order dated 4-8-2000 passed by the Court of IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P. Nos. 780 and 781 of 1998, C.M.A. No. 2677 of 2000 is filed against the order dated 4-8-2000 passed in I.A.No. 388 of 2000 in the said O.P. No. 780 of 1998, rejecting the plea of appointment of Receiver.2. The parties are closely related and they referred the matter to Arbitrators for entering arbitration and rendering the Award. The Arbitration Agreement dated 16-5-1998 was entered into to resolve the disputes pertaining to the joint family properties belonging to the parties and particularly, the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent as arrayed in O.P. No. 780 of 1998. Two Awards were rendered by the Arbitrators on 31-5-1998 and later on, they issued a clarification dt. 25-6-1998 stating that ...
Sri Ramakrishna Seva Ashrama Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(AP)633; [2001]252ITR171(AP)
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Commissioner of Income-tax (for short 'the CIT'), Guntur, refusing to grant exemption under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to grant renewal of exemption under Section 80G of the Act with effect from January 1, 1991.2. The petitioner-society is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with Reg. No. 71/77 of 1977. According to the petitioner, it is essentially a charitable institution, the avowed objects being charitable in nature--to diffuse scientific and technical knowledge on vedanta and also for the promotion of science, literature, fine arts in charitable institutions, in educational, technical, social and scientific fields, galleries of paintings and other works of art, collection of natural and philosophical inventions, instruments of designs, etc. It is also stated that...
B. Suresh Vs. A.P. Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: [2002]46CLA109(AP); [2002]108CompCas283(AP)
J. Chalameswar, J.1. C P. No. 219 of 1998 is filed by a company claiming to be the creditor of M/s. Ismit Medical Technology Limited under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), praying that the said Ismit be wound up as the same is not able to pay its debts. The petition was admitted on July 17, 2001, and the appropriate publication as required under Rule 99 of the Companies (Court) Rules was directed to be made.2. C A. No. 312 of 2001 is filed by one Mr. B. Suresh, who claims to be another creditor of the above-mentioned M/s. Ismit Medical Technology Limited praying that he may be impleaded as party respondent to Company Petition No. 219 of 1998. Along with the implead petition two more applications C. A. Nos. 310 of 1998 and 311 of 1998 are filed by Mr. Suresh with the prayers as follows :'. . . to declare the proposed sale of assets of respondent No, 2-com-pany by respondent No. 1-bank in pursuance of the notice dated May 23, 2001, as void an...
Degumati Hazarath Reddy Vs. the State of A.P. Rep., by Sub Insepctor o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD(Cri)493; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)249; 2001CriLJ4495
V. Eswaraiah, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by accused Nos. 2,4,5, 6 and 11 against the judgment dated 23/01/1995 made in C.C.No.40/1992 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge, Guntur under S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act').2. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6 are convicted under Section 323 R/W Section 149 IPC. A-1, A-4 and A-11 are further convicted of offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. The other accused are acquitted for the charges framed against them. It is not in dispute that the Sub Inspector of Police, Chinakraka P.S. laid a charge sheet against all the appellants herein and others directly before the learned Special Sessions Judge, who in turn took the cognizance of the offence and taken on file and held that the appellants are guilty for the aforesaid offences. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-6 and A-11 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 147 IPC. A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-6 are sentenced to...
Sajana Granites, Madras and anr. Vs. Manduva Srinivasa Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD436; 2002(1)ALT466
C.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 in OS No. 158 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, are the appellants. Appellants and A. Venkata Durgamba (hereinafter referred to as 3rd plaintiff) have filed the aforesaid OS No. 158 of 1992 against respondents, and five others for (i) a declaration that they (appellants) are the absolute owners of Ac.5.73 cents in S.No. 55/6 of Rajupalem Lakshmipuram village within the boundaries mentioned in item No. 1 of plaint schedule, and that 3rd plaintiff is the absolute owner of Ac.1.99 cents of land in S.No. 55/6 of Rajupalem Lakshmipuram village within the boundaries mentioned in item No. 2 of the plaint schedule; (ii) for a consequential permanent injunction restraining respondent 6 to 8 (defendants 10 to 12) from granting mining lease and other allied licenses to respondents 1 to 5 and defendants 6 to 9 in respect of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule; (iii) for a permanent injunction restraining defend...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »