Andhra Pradesh Court June 2006 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.
Rajender Prasad Agarwal and anr. Vs. Mysari Anasuya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD118
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Petitioners herein are the tenants in respect of the premises bearing No. 15-9-506, situated in Mahaboobgunj, Hyderabad which is part and parcel of the big building bearing M. No. 15-9-507. Respondents herein who are the landlords of the said premises filed R.C. No. 11 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, seeking eviction of the petitioners/tenants under Section 10(2)(1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for brevity, 'the Act') on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents from April, 1991 to 31-12-1996 i.e., for sixty nine months @ Rs. 1,000/- per month amounting to Rs. 69,105/- and the Rent Controller allowed the said petition by order dated 17-8-1999 against which the petitioners-tenants filed R.A. No. 305 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the learned Judge by order dated 20-1-2003 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Rent Controller. ...
Arthamudi Ramu and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-13-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ1659; 2006(5)ALD243
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, assailing the order, dated 17-10-2005, in O.A.A. No. 229 of 1999 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench. It raises an important question of law viz., whether the proceedings instituted before the Tribunal by an individual, claiming damages for the injuries received by him in an untoward incident or accident, would survive his death during the pendency of the proceedings.2. The deceased-first appellant submitted a claim before the Tribunal, stating that he was travelling from Rajahmundry to Nidadavolu on 22-3-1999, in Train No. 8561, Link Express, and when the Train was about to stop at Nidadavolu Station, the passengers, who stood behind, pushed him, resulting in his fall between the moving train and platform No. 2. It was pleaded that as a result of the fall, his left leg was run over and was later on, amputated. A sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was claimed as compensation.3. T...
G. Trinadha Swamy Vs. Gandham Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP381; 2006(4)ALD781; 2006(4)ALT627
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S.No. 610 of 2004, in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, against the respondents, for the relief of perpetual injunction. He filed I.A.No. 1158 of 2004, under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C., for temporary injunction.2. The petitioner pleaded that four items of suit schedule property, being agricultural lands, were purchased by his father, through sale deed, dated 12-5-1960, under Ex.P-1. He stated that after the death of his father in the year 1964, his mother was in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Petitioner pleaded that his mother executed a Will, dated 29-1-2003, and after her death in the year 2003, the suit schedule properties have devolved upon him and his brother.3. The petitioner complained that the 1st respondent, who is none other than his brother- in-law, and his brother, the 2nd respondent herein, started interfering with their possession, with the co-operation and assistance of 3rd respondent. I...
Esi Corporation Rep. by Its Regional Director Vs. P. Srinivasa Reddy a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD829; 2006(4)ALT798; [2006(111)FLR763]
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the order, dated 18-11 -2005, passed by the E.S.I. Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal in E.I. Appeal No. 8of 2003. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in C.M.A.No. 612 of 2005.2. The first respondent was employed as a Helper (Boiler Fireman) in M/s. Vishal Chemical Corporation, Jeedimetla. He has been admitted into the scheme of E.S.I, on 11 -11 -1994 on account of his employment and was issued E.S.I, card bearing No. 2548006.3. On 26-7-1995, the first respondent suffered extensive burn injuries during the course of employment, when he was removing burnt ash from the boiler fire box. His entire face, upto the ear, is said to have been burnt, particularly in the areas of temple and skull. On becoming unconscious, he was shifted to nearby hospital and was discharged after about one month. Thereafter, he was treated as in-patient in E.S.I. Hospital at Erragadda.4. In the context of extending the benefit Un...
Madiwada Ankineedu Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD431; 2006(4)ALT293
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Counsel representing the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, Sri Mokkapati Prabhakara Rao, learned Counsel representing 3rd respondent and Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel representing 4th respondent.2. The writ petition is filed praying for issuance of writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not conducting public auction for leasing out the collection of Aasil (tax) for weekly shandy of Challapalli Gram Panchayat and granting such right to 4th respondent from the year 2002-03 without conducting public auction as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to rules and pass such other suitable orders.3. This Court while ordering Rule Nisi on 28-03-2006 made the following order in W.P.M.P. No. 7753 of 2006.The case of the petitioner is that the Gram Panchayat conducted public auction for leasing out the collection of Aasil (tax) in the week...
Japson Estates P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(AP)238; [2006]285ITR40(AP)
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the intimation dated January 27, 2006, issued by the first respondent under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), adjusting the amount of refund of Rs. 32,58,795 pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06 against the demand of Rs. 45,14,870.2. The facts are not in dispute. For the assessment year 2003-04, the asses-see-company returned a total income of Rs. 25,63,380. However, through an assessment order dated December 30, 2005, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, under Section 143(3) of the Act, determined the total income as Rs. 1,21,14,010. He determined the net tax payable by the asses-see at Rs. 45,14,870. The assessment order was served on the assessee on January 16, 2006. A notice of demand was issued under Section 156 of the Act for the assessment year 2003-04. It was served on the assessee on January 16, 2006. According to this notice, the tax was payable by the asses...
M.A. Sulthan MohiuddIn Vs. Mohammad Suleman Babu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD827; 2006(4)ALT634
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 680 of 1998 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada. The 1ST respondent filed the suit against the 2nd respondent and the petitioner for recovery of certain amount on the strength of a promissory note. The petitioner denied his signature on Ex.A-1 and pleaded that it was forged. He filed I.A. No. 48 of 2006 Under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the promissory note marked as Ex.A-1 for the opinion of handwriting expert, for comparison with admitted signatures. The application was opposed by the 1ST respondent and through its order, dated 6-2-2006, the trial court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.2. Sri P.R. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the reasons assigned by the trial court, while dismissing I.A., are untenable. He contends that the petitioner raised the plea of forgery in the written statement itself and there was no justification for the...
Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Cent ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas41(AP); 2006(203)ELT544(AP); [2008]81SCL276(AP); 2006[4]STR394
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This writ petition raises a question as to whether the respondents could attach the properties of the petitioner for the purpose of recovery of excise duty. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the attachment proceedings initiated by the respondents vide C. No. V/30/80/2003 Misc. Tl, dated January 27, 2006.2. The petitioner-company is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in manufacture of heavy engineering, equipment for oil refineries, steel plants, fertilizers, defence etc., which are the products listed in the First Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The petitioner is also a subsidiary unit of M/s. Bharat Yantra Nigham Ltd., which is owned by the Government of India. It commenced its commercial production in the year 1971. The authorized capital of the petitioner-company is Rs. 3500 lakhs and the paid up capital is Rs. 3379.78 lakhs of equity shares of Rs. 1000 each.3. The compa...
In Re: Vaishu Engineering Industries Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD115
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. Before the 1st respondent-Company was ordered to be wound up by this Court on 15-2-1997, another respondent i.e., A.P. Industrial Development Corporation, which was a creditor of the Company, in exercise of powers under Section 29 of the A.P. State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, seized the assets of the Company, After seizure, the Industrial Development Corporation sold the assets of the Company to the 11th respondent. This sale took place prior to orders of winding up passed by the Court. The appellant-State Bank of India is one of the creditors of the Company in liquidation and it advanced amounts to the Company in liquidation against the security of current assets like raw-materials and semi-finished goods.2. The case of the appellant before the Company Court was that die respondent Company in liquidation had pledged goods in favour of the Bank, within the meaning of expression under Section 172 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 't...
N.K. Leasing and Construction P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC604; [2006]285ITR330(AP)
Bilal Nazki, J.1. The following two questions have been framed and referred to this Court by the Tribunal:(1) Whether the assessee is a dealer in shares or a mere investor in the shares and whether the excess amount of Rs. 2,70,000 received from the sale of 2,500 shares in XL Telcom P. Ltd., is liable to capital gains tax or should be treated as capital receipt?(2) Whether the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,70,000 received by the assessee-company under deed of settlement dated March 28, 1988, was transferred towards the sale of 2,500 shares of XL Telcom P. Ltd., and not for allowing other group of shareholders to take over the management of the said company?2. These questions arisen in the following factual matrix :The assessee had purchased shares of Wimco Ltd., on May 7, 1986, Reliance Industries Ltd., on April 9, 1986, and XL Telcom P. Ltd., on October 3, 1986. All these shares were retained by the assessee till the assessment year 1988-89 when they were...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »