Andhra Pradesh Court January 2005 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.
Kavali Narayana and ors. Vs. Kavali Chennamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD672; 2005(1)ALT805
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Defendants in O.S. No. 202 of 1991 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar are the petitioners herein. An application filed by them to condone the delay in presenting a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was dismissed by the Trial Court. Hence this revision.2. The respondent filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, in the year 1991. The father of the petitioners viz., Balappa and the father of the respondents viz., Chandrappa are brothers. The petitioners filed their written statement. They pleaded that the suit schedule property is their self-acquisition and that a partition has already taken place between Balappa and Chandrappa, in relation to joint family properties. Initially, the suit was dismissed for default on 29.1.1997. It was restored on 13.11.1998. Soon thereafter, an ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 25.11.1998.3. Petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13...
Kanakateegala Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(AP)587; [2005]275ITR448(AP)
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee. The question framed by the Tribunal for our consideration, arising out of its orders in I. T. A. No. 1638/Hyd of 1990, pertaining to the assessment year 1988-89, is as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal is correct in law in its finding that the amount of Rs. 7,85,725 provided by the assessee as an accrued liability is contingent liability and hence not an allowable deduction ?'2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this reference, briefly stated, are as under :The assessee is a registered firm carrying on the business of conducting various schemes for supply of motorcars, scooters and mopeds. It floated a scheme called 'own your vehicle scheme'. There were three types of schemes, namely, luna scheme, scooter scheme and car scheme. In each scheme 250 subscribers/members are enrolled. The duration of each scheme is 40 months. A subscriber is required to pay ...
V. Adinarayana and ors. Vs. Andhra Bank and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: [2006]126CompCas921(AP); [2006]68SCL469(AP); [2005]142STC469(AP)
ORDERM.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The facts relevant for disposal of the present writ petition, as can be gathered from the pleadings of the respective parties hereto, briefly stated, are as under :One M/s. Sree Lekha Industries became the highest bidder at the public auction conducted by second respondent-Corporation, exercising the powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 for realisation of the dues payable by M/s. Kusumamba Agencies Workshop. Respondent No. 1 (Andhra Bank) sanctioned to the said M/s. Sree Lekha Industries, capital finance, and an amount of Rs. 10,00,000 was sanctioned as open cash credit. The said M/s. Sree Lekha Industries is said to have furnished security to the respondent-Bank by mortgaging the property purchased in the aforesaid auction conducted by second respondent (A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.). As the said M/s. Sree Lekha Industries committed default, the account maintained by them was declared by the respondent-Bank a...
S.T.V. Raghunathachary Vs. Commissioner, Endowments Department and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD683; 2005(1)ALT788
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner challenges the notice of hearing, dated 27-12-2004 issued by the 2nd respondent. The brief facts that led to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as under:2. The 4th respondent, Executive Officer, Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Gaddi Annaram, Hyderabad, filed OA No. 113 of 1996 before the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (for short 'the Act)', seeking a declaration that the properties mentioned in the application belong to the temple. The petitioner is the sole respondent in that application.3. The proceedings had to cross several hurdles. Ultimately the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 20-7-2000. Sub-section (5) of Section 87 of the Act mandates that the order passed by the 2nd respondent shall not take effect, unless it is confirmed by an order of the 1st respondent. It was in this context tha...
M. Anandamma and ors. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer/Presiding Officer ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD657; 2005(1)ALT552
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Shorn of all the details, the only question that falls for our consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the Proceedings in R.C. No. A/394/2003, dated 6-12-2003, passed by the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, declaring that the petitioners have ceased to hold office of the Member of Mandal Parishad suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity?2. In order to appreciate the question as to the validity of the impugned proceedings, few relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition may have to be noticed.3. The facts are tell-tale depicting in vivid details, the extent of degeneration crept into local self-governing institutions. The local self-Government units have become play-fields where political games are played with the sole motive of capturing elected offices. Democratic norms and Rule of law are thrown to wind.FACTS IN BRIEF:4. The elections were held for Kurnool Mandal Parishad on 15th July, 2001. Out of 19 M...
Mokili Veeranna and ors. Vs. Danala Mala Kondaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD686; 2005(1)ALT663
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. When the petition seeking certain amendments to the plaint filed by the revision petitioners came up for hearing before the learned Trial Judge, he directed the petitioners to give the particulars of the amendments sought. Since the petitioners failed to furnish the particulars of the amendments sought, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition. Hence, this revision.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that since petitioners are not seeking any amendment other than those mentioned in Para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Trial Court was in error in dismissing the petition. Placing reliance on Varanasi Madhava Rao v. Narayansetti Govind Rajulu and Ors., : 1999(6)ALD194 , he contends that non-compliance with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, 1980, which is a technical Rule, does not entail dismissal of the petition.3. No representation on behalf of the respondents.4. The prayer in the petition f...
J. Kista Reddy and ors. Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP217; 2005(2)ALD666; 2005(2)ALT70
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 18-08-2004 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, in E.A. No. 85 of 2003, dismissing an application filed in E.P. No. 106 of 1997 in O.P. No. 38 of 1987.2. The lands of the petitioners 1 and 2 were acquired by the Government, under the Land Acquisition Act, for the purpose of Srisailam Project. Award was passed by the respondent. Not being satisfied with the same, they sought for reference, and it was taken up by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, as O.P. No. 38 of 1987. After the decree passed therein became final, they filed E.P. No. 106 of 1997, for recovery of the amount. The amount has since been deposited by the respondent. In the meanwhile, the 2nd petitioner died on 7-5-2003.3. Petitioners 3 to 6 filed E.A. No. 29 of 2004, under Section 146 of C.P.C., to bring them on record as legal representatives of the 2nd petitioner. The E.A. was allowed on 21-04-2004. Thereafter, petitione...
Muppasani Alluramma and ors. Vs. Gangapatla Mariyamma (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALT479
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The revision petitioners were the appellants in A.S. No. 25/95 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali. They filed IA No. 152 of 2000 in the said appeal under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the plaint and alteration of the measurements in the plaint schedule. This application was rejected by the lower appellate court and hence this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. IA No. 152 of 2000 was filed with an affidavit in support by the 3rd revision petitioner/3rd appellant, pleading that the revision petitioners 1 and 2 had instituted O.S. No. 61/88 on the file of the District Munsif, Kavali, against the respondents herein/defendants for declaration of their exclusive right of passage in the suit schedule property and for a consequent permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the site and for restraining them from raising a fallen wall sh...
Gadiraju Vidyulatha Vs. Indla Venkateswarlu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALT587
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondent filed the suit for recovery of amount covered by the suit promissory note, which was dismissed for default on 2-5-2000. Subsequently, respondent filed a petition Under Order 9 Rule 9 C. P. C. to restore the suit with a petition to condone delay of 389 days, with the affidavit sworn to by the counsel for the respondent in the trial Court, explaining the reasons for the delay. The Court below accepted the explanation and condoned the delay. Hence this revision by the defendant.2. In the affidavit sworn to by the counsel for respondent in the trial Court he stated that his clerk wrongly noted the suit number as 8 of 2000 instead of 7 of 2000 and so he was following proceedings as recorded in the B-diary of the court in respect of O. S. No. 8 of 2000, and only when the respondent approached him, after proper verification, he came to know that the suit number was wrongly noted and that the suit of respondent was dismissed for default for non-representat...
J.C. Chitharanjan Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2484
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C to revise the orders passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Anantapur D/- 8-7-2003 in Cri. M. P. No. 158/2003 in SC No. 271/2001, whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-7 and A-9 for summoning Superintendent of Police, CBCID to produce the record of investigation in Cr. No. 80/2001 of Muchukota Police Station in RCC No. 5060 D/- 23-12-2004 was dismissed.2. The petitioners who were figured as accused in SC No. 271/2002 are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 341 r/w. 149 and 120(B), I.P.C. They filed the present petition stating that on their representation Government of Andhra Pradesh directed Superintendent of Police, CBCID to further investigate into the crime and to submit a report. As per the said direction, Senior Police Officer, CBCID conducted investigation and seems to have submitted a report after examining the wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »