Andhra Pradesh Court June 2002 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suleman Khan and Mahaboob Khan Tobacco ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR170(AP)
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. The Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the instance of the revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that firm Suleman Khan & Mahaboob Khan & Co., Tobacco Exporters, Guntur, was entitled to claim registration for the relevant assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 ?2. The background facts leading to the above reference be noticed first and they are as follows : The respondent assessee-firm, Suleman Khan & Mahaboob Khan & Co., Tobacco Exporters, Guntur, is a partnership firm and the assessment years involved are 1975-76,1976-77 and 1977-78. According to the Commissioner, the assessee-firm consisted of 23 partners (20 adults + 3 minors) during each of the above three assessment years and that since the total number of partners exceeded 20, the Commissioner thought that the firm was not validly cons...
Narayana Rao Patalay (Died) Per L.Rs. and 3 ors. Vs. Naresh Thapper an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(6)ALD16; 2003(2)ALT110
ORDERY. Somayajulu, J.1. This revision arises out of the order in R.A.No.134 of 1994 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.2. Narayana Rao Pataley (hereinafter called the deceased), filed R.C.No.231 of 1988 under Section 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the 'Act'), seeking eviction of the respondent from the non-residential premises bearing No.3-6-341 (hereinafter called 'building') alleging that he, who was not in occupation of any other non-residential premises, had let out the building to the respondent for 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.950/- besides the amenity charges under a lease deed dated 1-7-1984, needs it for running a Charitable Clinic and Diagnostic Centre therein with the help and assistance of his son Dr.Manohar Pataley, a qualified Doctor and grand son Anil, a Medico, who assured their cooperation in running and continuing the charitable clinic as trustees both during his life time and ...
Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALD451
S.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-2-2001 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, (for short 'the APAT') allowing O.A. No. 6755 of 2000 filed by the respondent herein and setting aside the order issued in G.O. Ms. No. 520 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, dated 28-10-2000.2. The background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly and they are as follows : On an information that the respondent who at the relevant point of time was working as Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad has acquired assets disproportionate to the known sources of income, a case in Re No. 13/ACB-CR/93 under Section 13(2...
Sri Rama Krishna Commercial Corporation and ors. Vs. K.R. Janardhana G ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(6)ALT520
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants in O.S. No. 97/85 on the file of Additional District Judge, Hindupur are the appellants. The respondent plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 30,920/- with subsequent interest and for certain other reliefs.2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the Trial Court for the purpose of convenience.3. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that defendants 2 to 5 are the partners of the 1st defendant firm-1st appellant firm and the plaintiff had lent a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st defendant firm at Hindupur as deposit and the 2nd defendant representing the 1st defendant firm as a partner received the amount for the purpose of their business and passed voucher on 9.11.1982. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff again lent another sum of Rs. 10,000/-on 13.11.1982 to the said firm at Hindupur as deposit and the 2nd defendant representing the 1st defendant as partner received the said amount for the purpose of their business and ...
Patanshi Patel Vs. Mohd. Kazim Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD627
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. The petitioner - tenant filed this Civil Revision Petition against the judgment dated 13-11-1996 made in RA No. 29/1994 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge-cum- City Small Causes Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, reversing the judgment dated 12-10-1993 made in RC No. 1007/1987 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Rent, Lease and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act').2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed R.C.No. 1007/1997 against the petitioner as well as the other co-owner, who is respondent No. 4 herein, under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act praying the Court to make an order directing the petitioner herein to put them in possession of the premises bearing No. 8-3-322/1, situated at Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad. It is the case of the petitioner that one Aktharunnisa Begum was the owner of the said premises. During her life time, she let out the said premises to the petitioner herein on ...
Cit Vs. Transport Corpn. India Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN806(AP)
S.R. Nayak, J. In these referred cases, the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', has referred the following questions of law to this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the revenue arising out of the orders made by the Tribunal for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1984-85.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in allow in coming to the conclusion that the payment claimed to have been made under the head 'Secret commission' is not opposed to public policy and is an admissible item of deduction in the computation of the total income of the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure by way of secret commission was deductible under section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the business income of the assessee ?'In addition to the above two questions referred by the ...
Cit Vs. Suleman Khan and Mahaboob Khan Tobacco Exporters
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN673(AP)
S.R. Nayak, J.The Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that firm Suleman Khan & Mahaboob Khan & Co., Tobacco Exporters, Guntur, was entitled to claim registration for the relevant assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 ?2. The background facts leading to the above reference be noticed first and they are as follows: The respondent-assessee-firm, Suleman Khan & Mahaboob Khan & Co., Tobacco Exporters, Guntur, is a partnership firm and the assessment years involved are 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. According to the Commissioner, the assessee-firm consisted of 23 partners (20 adults + 3 minors) during each of the above three assessment years and that since the total number of partners exceeded 20, the Commissioner thought that the fi...
M.P. Murthy Vs. Sri Sathyanarayana Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)291; [2004]119CompCas691(AP)
Ch.S.R.K. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner who is accused No. 2 in the case invokes the inherent powers vested in this court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C. C. No. 29 of 1998 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Badvel, on the ground that he ceased to be the chairman of the company by the date of issuance of the dishonoured cheque and he had nothing to do with the management of the day-to-day affairs of the company.2. In support of the said plea, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on an unreported judgment of this court in Crl Petition No. 2300 of 1997, dated November 28, 1997, whereunder the proceedings initiated against him in C. C. No. 232 of 1997 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad were quashed.3. The petitioner who is A-2 in the case has only filed this criminal petition. Therefore, I confine myself in this order only in respect of A-2.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has draw...
V. Narayana Reddy Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)343; 2002CriLJ4638
ORDERS.R.K. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner invokes the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482. Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in Cr. No. 376/98 of Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad.2. The facts that lead to filing of the complaint and registering of a Crime can be succinctly stated as follows :The petitioner is a practising Advocate and Organizing Secretary of Organization for the Protection of Democratic Rights (OPDR). The organization is said to be fighting for the protection of democratic rights and defence of Human Rights through constitutional means since 1975. The said organization is member of All India Federation of Organization for Democratic Rights (AIFOFDR). After the Nuclear Tests at Pokhra in Rajasthan several intellectuals voiced their protest and a call was given by AIFOFDR to conduct State level convention to build public opinion against Nuclear Test and Weapons and Wards on various Sections of Society. The petitioner's organization is said to have convened...
Hajira Shama (Mrs.) Vs. Secretary of Government, Home (Police) Departm ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD(Cri)183; 2002(6)ALT208
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This writ petition has been filed to declare the inaction on the part of respondents 1 to 6 in not taking any action against respondents 7 to 9 despite lodging complaint, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct respondents 1 to 6 to investigate into the complaint lodged by the petitioner and file the charge-sheet.2. More often than not, this Court held that if the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned refuses to register the complaint (F.I.R.) as is required under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the complainant may approach the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned. But as no action is being taken by the police in registering the complaints, as is required under Section 154 of the Code the number of citizens approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is on the increase, and in all such cases, similar averments to the effect that the petitioner is a victim of a crime by another p...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »