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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Cor ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC609; (2006)205CTR(AP)609; [2006]285ITR147(AP)
Bilal Nazki J.1. Two questions have been referred to this Court at the instance of the Revenue and the questions are:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the benefits under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions contained in Section 12A(b) are only directory in nature and not mandatory ?2. Before these questions are answered, it may be pointed out that the assessee in this case is the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in its judgment reported in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. CIT : [1975]100ITR392(AP) , declared that the Corporation was entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), holding it to ...
In Re: Vaishu Engg. Industries Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: [2007]80SCL171(AP)
Bilal 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 the 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 ('the Contract Act'). The goods ple...
State of A.P. Vs. Jindal Strips Limited
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST777(AP)
ORDERJ. Chelameswar, J.1. These matters are interconnected. The parties are the same in all these matters. The respondent in T.R.C. No. 44 of 2003 is a public limited company. Prior to April 1, 1995, another company by name Jindal Ferro Alloys was in existence, registered under the Companies Act with the Registrar of Companies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is an admitted case of the parties that the said company during its existence was a subsidiary of the respondent-company.2. The abovementioned subsidiary company admittedly got amalgamated with the holding company, i.e., the respondent-company hereinafter following the appropriate procedure of law prescribed under the Companies Act with effect from April 1, 1995. The said date is the effective date agreed upon by both the companies under the scheme of amalgamation, which was approved by two High Courts having jurisdiction over the holding company and the subsidiary company. Though the actual orders approving the scheme of amalga...
Ayitham Venkaiah Vs. Ayitham Surya Bhaskara Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALT305
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Revision petitioner filed the suit seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession over the plaint schedule property inter alia contending that in pursuance of the settlement reached and as per the award passed by the Lok Adalat he is entitled to continue in possession thereof. During the course of evidence, when he sought to mark a copy of the award passed by the Lok Adalat, counsel for the 1st respondent took an objection for marking that award on the ground that it requires to be stamped and registered. The trial Court upheld the contention that it requires stamp duty as conveyance, but does not require registration and directed the revision petitioner to pay stamp duty and penalty thereon as a condition precedent to receive it in evidence. Hence this revision.2. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides and the Special Government Pleader on behalf of the Advocate General, because I wanted to know th...
Gram Panchayat Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD451
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Ms. Uma Devi representing Sri G. Rama Gopal and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj.2. The writ petition is filed praying for the relief to declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in issuing the Memo No. 109317/PTS.III/A2/2004-02, dated 21.12.2004 by the 1st respondent and the consequential orders passed by the 2nd respondent dated 3.1.2005 in letter No. 4187/02/A6 as arbitrary and illegal by issuing a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and pass such other suitable orders.3. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Boddam Gram Panchayat and he is challenging the Memo No. 109317/PTS.III/A2/2004-02 dated 21.12.2004 issued by the 1st respondent-Government and the consequential orders passed by the 2nd respondent dated 3.1.2005 as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter, in short, referr...
T. Premachandra Rao Vs. B. Pramod, General Manager (Plg. and Dev.) Syd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD607; 2006(4)ALT309
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. This writ petition is filed, seeking to have the orders passed by the 2nd respondent -disciplinary authority in compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service, vide proceedings dated 15-4-1999, as confirmed by the 1st respondent-appellate authority, vide proceedings dated 23-8-1999, quashed.2. Brief facts, to the extent necessary, are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent - bank on 06-01-1977. While he was working as a clerk, at the Kothapeta branch of the respondent bank, he was served charge sheet, dated 13-06-1998, by the disciplinary authority, on 27-06-1998, for gross misconduct of 'doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank' under Clause 19.5(j) of the bipartite settlement. The petitioner was asked to submit his written statement of defence within 15 days. The petitioner, vide letter dated 03-09-1998, sought for certain documents, receipt of which was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent on 06-09-1998. The petitioner was inform...
Rani Sundarammani Vs. Govt. of A.P., Revenue Department and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD184; 2006(4)ALT374
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. The action of the respondents, in placing large extents of land in Yerranagavari Palle village and in paimash Nos. 120 to 139 of Penubalakala hamlet in Chittoor District in the Prohibitory Book Register, is under challenge in this writ petition. Consequential directions are sought to implement G.O.Ms. No. 439 dated 13-3-1957 and to include the name of the petitioner, in the revenue records, as the owner of these lands.2. The facts, to the extent necessary, are that Punganoor Zamin estate was notified on 07-09-1950 and was finally taken over by the Government, under the A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Act 26 of 1948), on 22-07-1952. When the Zamin was notified and taken over a representation was submitted by the Zamindar to the government on 17-11-1952 stating that certain lands purchased by his ancestors more than 80 years before abolition of the Estate, and which were his personal property, did not form part of the 'Estate'. G.O...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nakirikanti Narendra Babu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC338; 2007ACJ2069; 2006(5)ALD11
G. Chandraiah, J.1. Heard both the Counsel.2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 18-9-1997 passed by the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khammam in O.P. No. 89/1993, the Insurance Company filed the appeal.3. The case of the claimant in brief is that on 22-10-1992 at about 1.00 a.m., he was travelling in the car bearing No. DIA 2640 to go to his native place Gujmpena from Khammam. While so, due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, the car dashed against a stationed lorry bearing No. AP-36/T-2439 near Tivur cross-roads. As a result of the accident, claimant sustained multiple injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, V.M. Banjer, where from, he was referred to Government Hospital, Khammam. The police registered a case against the driver of the car under Section 338 I.P.C. Alleging that the claimant was an agriculturist having Acs. 10-00 of land and out of which Acs. 6-00 is wet and rest is dry and that he was growing commercial crop and that he su...
Gode Chandra Reddy and ors. Vs. Gade Ram Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD4
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri J. Suresh Babu representing Sri K. Mahipathi Rao, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Venkat Reddy, the learned Counsel representing respondents.2. The civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order made in IA No. 2853 of 2003 in AS No. 13 of 2003 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to Code, to implead the legal representatives of the deceased person, the 7th respondent as respondents in appeal, had been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would maintain that the petitioners had no knowledge about the death of the party at all and when they came to know about the death, immediately they moved the application and hence the question of limitation would not arise. Since from the date of kno...
Ravi Venkatravamma Vs. Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD298; 2006(5)ALT829
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. First respondent filed a petition seeking eviction of the husband of the revision petitioner from its property leased out to him under the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (the Act). That petition was allowed after contest. Thereafter, husband of the revision petitioner died. So, first respondent filed an execution petition for enforcement of the order of eviction against the revision petitioner in her capacity as the legal representative of her husband. She opposed that petition inter alia on the ground of limitation and on the ground that a relationship of tenant and landlord is created between her and the respondent due to the first respondent receiving rents from her. Overruling the objections raised by her, the Special Officer ordered delivery of the demised property to the respondent by the order under revision. Hence this revision.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that after the Special Officer pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »