Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
G. Venu Gopal Reddy Vs. P. Anantha Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD565
ORDER1. The civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner under Section 91 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 aggrieved by the order dated 13-3-2000 passed in Appeal No. F1/IA-14/99 by the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar dismissing an application filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 21-6-1997 passed by the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar in File No. B7/IA-103/76, B7/17/90 and further to declare that the land in S. No. 45 of Nandigam village to an extent of Acs.5.00 is not covered by any protected tenancy as held by the civil Court.2. The facts in brief are as follows :3. The revision petitioner, a third party to the prior proceedings, had purchased the land in Sy. No. 45 of Nandigam village measuring Acs.5.00 from the original pattedar by a registered document bearing No. 1540/90 dated 2-11-1990 and thus he claims to be the absolute owner of the said property by virtue of the said sale deed. The original owners filed suit ...
Digambar Rao and anr. Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD696; 2001(6)ALT226
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. One of us P.S. Narayana, J, by order dated 27-7-2001, has referred the following question to this Full Bench for its opinion:Whether the authorities under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, have the power of review despite the fact that there is no specific provision dealing with the said power of review under the Act.2. Mr. Bakshi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the primary Tribunal is a statutory authority, and it is not a Court for its jurisdiction is confined only to the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. He submits that inasmuch as there does not exist any power of review in the primary Tribunal, it dismissed the review application, and the appellate Tribunal has thus committed an illegality in reversing the decision of the primary Tribunal. He further submits the only power vested in the primary Tribunal in this regard is contained in Rule 16(5)(b) of the A.P....
Ali BIn Abud Vs. Mrs. Devasena and Mrs. Grace Vijaya Kumari
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD(Cri)653; 2002CriLJ766
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. In W.P. No. 17008 of 1997 this Court on 28-4-99 passed the following order;'Hence, the Writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. However, it is obviously the petitioner cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law and not by high-handedly.'2. Now, it is contended that after obtaining the order which was served on the respondents and in spite of having the knowledge of the order the respondents without issuing any notice of whatsoever in nature came to the premises on 8-2-2000 at 2.00pm along with police force and high-handedly dispossessed the petitioner from the said premises. When the petitioner and his family members protested and demanded that Court order should be honoured they were pushed aside by the police. The materials like shamiyanas and cooking materials were also not allowed to be taken away by the petitioner and he was informed that they would conduct Panchanama and deliver the material to him...
Prabhakar Enclave Ecil Employees Co.Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Govt. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT179
ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J.1. As per the directions of this Court dated 14-9-2001, the petitioner-Society filed a revised lay-out without leaving 10% of the total extent of land, for recreation and other amenities. The officials of the HUDA, have agreed to release the lay-out if the petitioner-society is agreeable to the modifications made to the revised plan submitted by the petitioner-society. Whether the petitioner Society agrees or not, this being a mandatory provision, the petitioner-society has no option except to adhere to the rules relating to the lay-out formulated by the HUDA.2. Secondly the Counsel for the HUDA submits that the revised lay-out submitted by the petitioner-society shall be treated as a fresh layout.3. Prima facie I am of the opinion that under Section 32 of the Andhra Fradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, the HUDA cannot cancel the permission though there are some short falls or deviations and at the most they can only direct the concerned to rectify them and if th...
Superintending Engineer, Roads and Buildings and anr. Vs. V. Kodandara ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT797
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This revision is filed against the order and decree in O.P.No. 107 of 1991 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi.2. The petitioners 1 and 2 herein are the respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P. The 1st respondent in this revision filed O.P.No. 107 of 1991 under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for making the Award passed by the 2nd respondent herein, (the arbitrator), the rule of the Court.3. The O.P. was filed on 21-10-1991 against the Superintending Engineer, IPP-II, Cuddapah and the Arbitrator. Subsequently, I.A.No. 202 of 1994 was filed for impleading the petitioners herein and the same was ordered on 4-4-1995. In the O.P it was contended that the 2nd respondent herein was appointed as an arbitrator by the Court in Q.P.No. 25 of 1986 who took up the proceedings and passed Award dt. 16-9-1991 for an amount of Rs. 1,95,291/- and that the decree be passed for making the award the rule of the Court.4. The petitioners filed a counter taking ...
State of Andhra Pradesh, Land Reforms Vs. K.V. Jagannadha Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT228a
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The State of Andhra Pradesh through the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Kakinada filed this C.R.P. against the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal dt. 6-2-1993 in L.R.A. No. 202 of 1990.2. L.R.A.NO. 202 of 1990 was filed by the respondent against the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada in L.C.C. No. 532/TNI/75 dt. 26-5-1990. The controversy in all these proceedings is about the inclusion of the land in S.No. 318 of A.V. Nagaram covered by an agreement of sale marked as Ex.A-6. The Primary Tribunal while processing the declaration of the respondent refused to exclude the land covered under Ex.A-6 and passed an order dt. 20-5-1977. The respondent preferred. LRA.No. 558 of 1978 before the Appellate Tribunal. After framing necessary issues, the Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 15-5-1979 held as under: 'The transferee is in possession of such lands and it cannot be included in the holding of the transferor/declarant. The land covered u...
Palanki Narasimha Murthy Vs. Maddukuri Veeraju (Died) by Lrs.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD261; 96(2002)DLT749aa
ORDER1. Heard both the Counsel.2. The short question involved in the present CRP is the admissibility of a document filed partition list dated 10-4-1969. The decree-holder in EP No.327 of 1998 in OS No.156 of 1986 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner had filed the aforesaid E.P. seeking delivery of items shown in the list of properties in terms of Order 21, Rule 35 CPC and at that juncture the judgment-debtors 6 to 8 had raised an objection on the ground that they are the owners of the property having got the same in partition with their brothers and they have produced the document a partition list dated 10-4-1969 and the revision petitioner-decree-holder had raised an objection relating to the marking of the said document on the ground that it is not a partition list, but it is an out-and-out deed and the same is compulsorily registrable and liable for stamp duty penalty also. The Court below, after discussing the...
S. Guru Murthy and anr. Vs. R. Lakshmana Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)ALD524; 2001(6)ALT655
ORDER1. The defendants in OS No. 442/97 are the petitioners this Civil Revision Petition (CRP). The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of certain amounts in the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The petitioners filed the written statement. However, during the subsequent proceedings, they remained absent. Consequently the trial Court decreed the suit exparte on 10-2-1999.2. The petitioners filed IA. 210/99 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The trial Court dismissed the said IA through orders dated 12-8-1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed CMA. No. 40/99 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The lower appellate Court on having been satisfied about the reasons for the petitioners or their counsel not being present on 10-2-1999, set aside the exparte decree through its order dated 8-11-99. However, while setting aside the exparte decree, the lower appellate Court imposeda condition that the petitioner shal...
K. Sivarajamma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)ALD721; 2002(1)ALT43; I(2002)DMC641
Bilal Nazki, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit before the Family Court for a declaration that she was the legally wedded wife of the late K. Yadaiah. Defendant No.3 in the suit also claimed to be the wife of the deceased Yadaiah. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed by the trial Court : (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as the wife of late K. Yadaiah as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is the nominee of her late husband K. Yadaiah to entitle for the service benefits as claimed for? (3) To what relief? 2. The trial Court came to the conclusion that defendant No.3 Yadamma was the legally wedded wife of the late K. Yadaiah and dismissed the suit. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Court and the evidence and we find that the defendant No.3 had produced Ex.B3 a legal heir certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer on 12-9-1994 to substantiate her claim that she was the l...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhanodaya Industries
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(AP)363; [2002]253ITR350(AP)
S. Ananda Reddy, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, Hyderabad, referred the following questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), said to arise out of its order in ITA No. 208 of 1980, dated July 15, 1981, for the assessment year 1976-77 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that assets were not sold within the meaning of Section 41(2) and hence no profit under Section 41(2) can be brought to tax ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that capital gain has to be computed by taking one half of the sale price instead of full and deducting therefrom the cost of one half joint share to the assessee-firm ?' The facts leading to the reference are :The assessee was a firm consisting of two partners,...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »