Andhra Pradesh Court December 2004 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.
P. Murali Rao and anr. Vs. Raghunatha Rao Ghatge
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALT731
ORDERS.R.K. Prasad, J.1. Both these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the Judgment rendered in R.A. No. 32 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the R.C. No. 301 of 1995 on the file of I Additional Rent Controller, at Hyderabad.3. The brief resume of admitted facts are necessary to consider the case in both the Civil Revision Petitions. It is an undisputed fact that the premises is owned by the landlord, who is the petitioner in R.C. No. 301 of 1995 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, at Hyderabad.4. The schedule premises was said to have been let out to the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 165/- exclusive of the electricity charges which are directly payable by the first respondent to the Electricity Department. The schedule premises was constructed in the year 1950 and let out orally. The premises consists of three rooms, open yard, ba...
Raasi Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 1)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(AP)179; [2005]275ITR579(AP)
M.H.S. Ansari J.1. Heard Mr. S. Ravi, learned counsel for the assessee and Mr. S. R. Ashok, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue.2. The instant reference arises out of an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 1237/Hyd. of 1992 pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85. It is at the instance of the assessee that the following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the contributions made by the applicant in M/s. Raasi Cement Executives Welfare Trust was not deductible in computing the income of the applicant ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Executive Welfare Trust was hit by the provisions of Section 40A(9) of the Income-tax Act ?'3. The brief facts relevant to the questions as posed for our consideration are : the assessee is ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ibp Co. Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC181; 2006ACJ2807; AIR2005AP179; 2005(2)ALD66; 2005(2)ALT596
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for appellant and the learned Counsel for the Respondent.2. This CMA is preferred by the Appellant-Railways being aggrieved by the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad in OAA No. 108 of 1998 dated 7.6.1999 in granting compensation of Rs. 68,362/- to the respondent herein.3. The respondent is the applicant in the OAA filed the said application contending that a consignment of Tank Wagon No.SC-49044 consisting of 27020 litres of M.S. was booked with the Appellant-Railways under R.R. No. 106309 dated 2.4.1994 from Visakhapatnam to Rajahmundry with the loaded dip of 210.8 cms., but when the tank wagon was received at the destination-Rajahmundry on 5-4-1994, there was a shortage of 4353 litres of MS. It is stated that while the wagon was under the custody of the Railways, the top seal was found missing and the bottom seal was found intact and there was a drop in dip by 36.8 cms. and therefore, claimed compen...
Raasi Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 2)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: [2005]275ITR582(AP)
M.H.S. Ansari J.1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.2. The instant reference is at the instance of the assessee. For the assessment year 1985-86, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the ITAT) disposed of the appeal in I. T. A. No. 1238/Hyd of 1998 and referred the following question said to be arising out of its order for the opinion of this court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled for initial depreciation under Section 32(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act with respect to the quarters to the employees ?3. After having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are of the view that the question requires to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. For the said purpose, reference to a few facts as noticed in the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal may be stated.4. The assessee constructed bui...
Zilludumudi Appa Rao (Died) by Lr Vs. Veerini Suryanarayana (Died) by ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ALD606; 2005(4)ALT21
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Aggrieved by the decree in O.S. No. 211 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam the defendant in that suit preferred this appeal.2. The deceased first-respondent filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration that the attachment, and sale of the properties held in E.P. No. 399 of 1969 in O.S. No. 126 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam is vitiated by fraud and hence is liable to be set aside. His case is that he is the owner of the house bearing Door Nos. 22-31-18/1 to 13 with Municipal Assessment No. 5374 in T.S. No. 444-A in Block No. 5 of Seetharamaswamy Temple Ward at Visakhapatnam, situated in about 278 Sq. yards of site. The deceased first appellant who obtained a money decree for recovery of Rs. 9,540/- and interest in O.S. No. 126 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam filed E.P. No. 399 of 1969, and got attached the said sit...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. I.B.P. Co. Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: II(2007)ACC194
V. Eswaraiah, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This C.M.A. is preferred by appellant Railways being aggrieved by the order of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad in O.A.A. No. 108 of 1998 dated 7.6.1999 in granting compensation of Rs. 68,362 to respondent herein.3. Respondent is the applicant in the O.A.A. filed the said application contending that a consignment of tank wagon No. SC 49044 consisting of 27020 litres of M.S. was booked with appellant Railways under R.R. No. 106309 dated 2.4.1994 from Visakhapatnam to Rajahmundry with the loaded dip of 210.8 cm, but when the tank wagon was received at the destination Rajahmundry on 5.4.1994, there was shortage of 4353 litres of M.S. It is stated that while the wagon was under the custody of the Rai Iways, the top seal was found missing and the bottom seal was found intact and there was a drop in dip by 36.8 cms and, therefore, claimed compensation from the appella...
Kommineni Thirupathamma, W/O. Seetharamaiah Vs. Koritala Veeraiah and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD425; 2005(2)ALT783
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. The appellant herein filed a suit being O.S.No.41 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Parchur in Prakasam District for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed. The defendants filed an appeal before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chirala, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Parchur. The said appeal being A.S.No.16 of 1995 was allowed ex parte on 10.3.1997. Having come to know this, the appellant herein filed I.A.No.796 of 1997 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to set aside the ex parte orders of the appellate Court dated 10.3.1997. The learned appellate Judge rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Ms.G.Jhansi, submits that in the affidavit filed accompanying the interlocutory application, the appellant has shown sufficient cause for not being able to prosecute the app...
Smt. K. Vijaya Bharathi, D/O K. Suryanarayana Vs. Government of Andhra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD694
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Heard the arguments of Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, Mr. Vijay Bhaskar Moola, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr. S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for second respondent and Mr. G. Nagaraju, appearing for third respondent.2. Assailing the action of the second respondent in terminating the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 30.4.2004 from the posts of Principals, the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioners as Principals of the Schools run by the second respondent. The second respondent society, which is being run with the aid and support of first respondent-Government is a registered society and is running residential educational institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The first respondent has complete control over the activities of second respondent in the matter of running resi...
Maharaja Alak Narayana Science and Arts Society (Mansas) Vs. Buddaraju ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD474; 2005(2)ALT106
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This writ petition is filed by Maharaja Alak Narayana Science & Arts Society (for brevity, MANSAS), Vizianagaram, seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records leading to passing of the orders in proceedings Roc.No.VI/808/ 2001, dated 25.7.2003 by which second respondent set aside the proceedings of Special Deputy Tahsildar (SDT) (Inams), Vizianagaram, dated 18.11.1978 and subsequent order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, dated 30.5.2001 and remitted matter back to the primary Tribunal for enquiry under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (hereafter called, the Act). The fact of the matter in brief is as follows:2. The Inams Abolition Act came into force on 26.9.1956. A Trust Deed dated 12.11.1958 was executed by Kumararaja of Vizianagaram constituting MANSAS for the land admeasuring Acs.20.00 in S.No.64-2/3. The land was, however, handed over to the trust on 26.9.1963 to th...
Edla Shobha Rani Vs. Yegurla Rambabu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD40
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Questioning the order dated 24-9-2004 allowing IA. No. 951 of 2004 in OS No.371 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, filed under Rule 17 of Order VI CPC by the respondents/defendants, this revision is preferred by the revision petitioner/ plaintiff.2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the petition was filed after the trial of the suit is taken up, in view of the amended Rule 17 of Order VI CPC as per Act 22 of 2002, the Court below was in error in allowing the petition. It is his contention that in any event since amendment sought is devoid of merit in view of the earlier orders of this Court, the Court below was in error in allowing the petition.3. By virtue of Section 16(2)(b) of the Act 22 of 2002, the provisions of Rule 17 of Order VI CPC as amended by that Act 22 of 2002 do not apply to the pleading filed before the commencement of the said Act 22 of 2002, whi...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »