Andhra Pradesh Court March 2003 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.
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Laxmi Builders and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)ALD87; 2003(3)ALT1
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The first respondent herein filed W.P. No. 1529 of 2003 invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the appellants herein in disqualifying it from the tender process and awarding the contract to the second respondent herein as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The first respondent herein also prayed for grant of an appropriate direction directing the appellants herein to award the contract to it.2. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition duly setting aside the award of contract to the second respondent herein and further directed the appellants herein to consider the tender of the first respondent herein also and finalise the tender afresh, as per rules.3. In order to consider as to whether the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmities, it may be necessary to notice the relevant facts ...
Gade Ramachandraiah (Died) and ors. Vs. Gade Lingaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT736
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This C.R.P. is directed against the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet dated 7-2-2003 made in I.A. No. 15 of 2003 in O.S. No. 96 of 1987.2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit. The respondents herein filed the above suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property which is an extent of Ac.3.03 guntas in S.No. 340/A. In the said suit trial has been completed in the month of November 2002 and it was coming up for arguments from time to time. At the stage when the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioners filed an application to reopen the suit and allow them to adduce further evidence. According to the petitioners, the respondents filed the suit basing on an entry in 13-C Accounts by virtue of the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and that the said order was assailed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir and the Revenue Divisional Officer after full fledged enquiry passed orders o...
Akula Narayana Swamy and ors. Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Land Acquisiti ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT533
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. These three revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raise common and identical question of law and are dealt with together. In all the revision petitions, the challenge is as to the order passed by the second respondent-Special Deputy Collector (LA) APIIC Limited, Visakhapatnam, camp office at Kakinada dt.30-11-2002, whereunder the petitioners were informed that the applications filed by them under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') are not maintainable since the claimants have availed the benefit under Section 18 of the Act in O.P. Nos.45/99, 89/99 and 46/99 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada respectively.2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the revision petitions, are as under:On requisition made for establishment of iron plant by ESSAR Gujarath Limited, Kakinada, certain lands were acquired. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passe...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jahangir Shareef and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALT634
P.S. Narayana, J.1. With the consent of both the counsel the main Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself is being disposed of.2. The facts in brief are as follows:The appellant herein, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office-I, A-1-Karim Trade Centre, M.G. Road, Secunderabad, had filed an application in I.A.No. 504 of 2001 in O.P.No. 1000 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum- V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for the relief of condonation of delay of 175 days in filing the application to set aside ex parte decree dated 2-8-2000 in O.P.No. 1000 of 1999.3. O.P.No. 1000 of 1999 was filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- under various heads against 1st respondent owner of the vehicle and 2nd respondent the Insurance Company. Notices were served on both the respondents. Since they remained abse...
Shaik Mahaboob Basha Vs. A.P. Southern Power Distribution Corporation ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)ALT847
ORDERE. Dharma Rao, J.1. The petitioner herein seeks a declaration that the action of the respondents in disputing about the petitioner's date of birth in the service record after his retirement and not paying the terminal benefits and the Memo No. SE/O/GNT/P and G/JAO/C/ D/No. 416/2001, dated 1-11-2001 as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to pay the terminal benefits by following his date of birth as 16-6-1943 for all purposes along with interest.2. The petitioner states that he was appointed as Helper in the respondents-Corporation in the year 1960 and on attaining superannuation he retired from service on 30-6-2001, being his date of birth as 16-6-1943. The petitioner complains that though he retired from service on attaining the superannuation, the 3rd respondent by the impugned proceedings dated 1-11-2001 without paying the terminal benefits communicated to the petitioner that there is discrepancy in the date of birth of the petitioner and that it req...
Sithani Textiles and Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.P. Industrial Dev. Corpn.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: 2005(186)ELT401(AP)
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. This writ petition was filed with the following prayer :'... to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting 24% interest on the deposit of Rs. 15,20,000/- with the 1st respondent from 31-3-1992 till the date of delivery of the possession of the assets of M/s. Dhakshin Fabrics Limited, as highly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pay 24% interest on the said amount from 31-3-1992 till the date of delivery of possession of the assets of M/s. Dhakshin Fabrics Limited and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'2. By order dated 30-8-2001, the above payer was amended in WPMP No. 21339 of 2001, which is as follows :'... to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not handing...
Shv Energy South East Limited, Represented by Its General Manager (Fin ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: [2004]136STC100(AP)
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. These writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order since the issues raised are common requiring our decision.2. In nutshell, the petitioners in the instant writ petitions are challenging the denial of the benefit of exemption from sales tax as provided for under G.O.Ms. No. 108, Industries & Commerce (IP) Department, dated 20-5-1996 by the sales tax authorities. The decision of the sales tax authorities, according to the petitioners, is based upon the decision of the State Investment Promotion Board, which is purported to have been taken at the meeting held on 31st December, 1999.3. The petitioners herein are two major liquefied petroleum bottling companies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. They are engaged in the business of importing, bottling and supply of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Their claim essentially centers around the industrial policy announced by the State Government for new industries in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 108, dated 20-5-1996. The ...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax and ors. Vs. Sb. Zainab Noorul Sayeed and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD758; 2003(2)ALT610; (2003)184CTR(AP)596; [2003]262ITR306(AP)
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. These R.Cs., may be disposed of by a common order, since the question referred for the opinion of this Court is common in all theses cases.2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench referred the following question, said to be a question of law, for the opinion of this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the exemption under Section 5(1)(xii) of the Wealth Tax Act in respect of 7 items of jewellery claimed to represent art treasures?'3. In this batch of cases, we are concerned only with the said question.4. In order to express our opinion, it is just and necessary to notice the relevant facts:The issue relates to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87. 5. His Exalted Highness, the late Nb. Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, created 'HEH the Nizam's Jewellery Trust' by the Indenture dated 29-3-1951. The said Settlor specified the names of the beneficiaries, their respective sh...
Shv Energy South East Limited and anr. Vs. State Investment Promotion ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD665; 2003(3)ALT247
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. These writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order since the issues raised are common requiring our decision.2. In nutshell, the petitioners in the instant writ petitions are challenging the denial of the benefit of exemption from sales tax as provided for under G.O. Ms. No. 108, Industries and Commerce (IP) Department, dated 20-5-1996 by the sales tax authorities. The decision of the sales tax authorities, according to the petitioners, is based upon the decision of the State Investment Promotion Board, which is purported to have been taken at the meeting held on 31st December, 1999.3. The petitioners herein are two major liquefied petroleum bottling companies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. They are engaged in the business of importing, bottling and supply of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Their claim essentially centers around the industrial policy announced by the State Government for new industries in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 108, dated 20-5-1996. The p...
Rani Bai and ors. Vs. Thakur Ganesh Sing and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)ALD8
ORDERV. Eswariah, J.1. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 76 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The suit was filed for partition of the scheduled properties. It is stated that the entire evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendants was closed and when the matter was posted for arguments the plaintiff-respondents came up with an application in I.A. No. 830 of 2001 under Order 16 Rule 1(a) and 6 C.P.C. to summon one R. Venkateshwar Rao to attend the Court to procure and speak about the entries made in Khasrapahani of the year 1954-55 of Hanamkonda revenue village pertaining to land in Sy. No. 733. It is stated in the said application that the plaintiff made very attempt to procure the khasrapahani of the suit scheduled land from the revenue authorities but he could not locate the relevant records; that after making hectic inquiries he came to know that one R. Venkateshwar Rao, who worked as Patwari and Mali patel ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »