Andhra Pradesh Court February 2012 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.
M/S. Mohamadiya and Company,a Partnership Vs. Smt. C. Uma and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.5842 o9. 2-2012 M/s. Mohamadiya & Company,A partnership firm represented by Gulam Mohammd Khan and others Smt. C. Uma and others Counsel for petitioners : Sri K.K. Waghray Counsel for respondents : Sri D. Madhava Rao ?CASES REFERRED:1. C.R.P.No.5025/2009, dt. 21-7-2010 2. 2007(4) ALT 34.(L.B.) 3. AIR 191.Madras 998 (F.B.) 4. AIR 196.S.C....
M/S.Gutta Anjaneyulu and Co.Rep. by Shri B Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SKJ ITTA NO.17 OF 200.09-02-2012 M/s.Gutta Anjaneyulu & Co.Rep. by Shri Balusu Pitchaiah,Powerpet, Eluru. Commissioner of Income-Tax,Vijayawada. Counsel for Appellant : Sri Y.Ratnakar Counsel for respondents : Sri S.R.Ashok JUDGMENT: (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR) The assessee is aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal dated 02.08.1999 in ITA No.1656(Hyd)/1992 relating for the assessment year 1972-73. The order has been passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'B', Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').2. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') the following substantial questions of law have been framed for our consideration: "1) Whether the Tribunal's approach that the assessee has to prove the non- service of notice under Sec.148 of the Act and the "department has to prove the negative", is in conformity with law? 2...
Gandikota Subba Rao Vs. G. Srinath and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
(Typed to dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order dt.5.5.2009 in C.C.No.353/2006 on the file of District Forum, Guntur, the opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants and their father are the owners of property admeasuring 461.5 sq.yards and they sold it to the opposite parties under regd. Sale Deeds dt.25.11.96. The opposite party who is the builder started construction of a multi storied building venture and agreed to convey an undivided and unspecified 2/80th share equallent to 11.52 sq.yards of site along with a shop to be constructed by him in the IInd floor which is to be named as Shyam Sunder Golden Towers in a plinth area of 240 sq.ft. for a sum of Rs.80,000/-( 29,000/-:site value + Rs.51,000/-: construction value). The complainants submit that the opp.parties delayed the construction on some pretext or the other and dragged on this project for years together and ultimately completed it ...
Smt. S. Jayasree Vs. the Secretary, A.P. Bar Council Hyderaba
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.12.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.34163 of 2011.2. At the outset, it is necessary to state the prayer made in the writ petition. This reads as follows:"................the High Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ, or Quo-Warranto or Writ of Mandamus, or orders of appropriate writ, order quashing the Election Notification dated 05.11.2011 to the Bar Council of State of Andhra Pradesh illegally issued by the Secretary without competency or authorization by a competent authority as per the provision of Bar Council Rules of Advocates Act 1961 by granting injunction in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India restraining the Secretary from proceeding to hold elections in accordance with legal citations M/s Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited v. M/s. Lanco Kondapalli Power Pvt. Limited Justice S.B.Sinha and Justice P.P.Naolekar 2005...
Pallerla Gangadhar and Others Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.ORDER:1. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has since secured necessary instructions from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagital on 06.02.2012, a copy of which has been placed before me. This Writ Petition is instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for cancelling the notification issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagital for filling up, on a regular basis, dealers for fair price shops No. 1909, 1949, 1918, 1931, 1924, 1934 and 1923 and further direct the respondents to adhere to the selection procedure contemplated by the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short, 'the 2008 Order') read with the decision of the State Government contained in their G.O.Ms.No. 52, Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 18.12.2008. The case of the petitioners is that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagital has not been adhering to the procedure of selection contemplated by the 2008 Order and the policy de...
G.K.Reddy Vs. G.Aswatha Reddy and ors
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.ORDER:1. This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 18.04.2011, in I.A.No.162 of 2011 in O.S.No.29 of 2008, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur.2. The petitioner is one of the defendants in O.S.No.49 of 2005 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. While the said suit was pending, the petitioner filed O.S.No.29 of 2008 in the same Court for permanent injunction against the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed I.A.No.162 of 2011 under Section 10 r/w Section 151 CPC for stay of O.S.No.29 of 2008 on the ground that the issues raised therein are directly and substantially in issue in the suit filed by them. The lower Court has allowed the said application by order, dated 18.04.2011, and stayed the suit along with the Ias filed therein. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition.3. At the hearing, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel f...
T. Sreenivasulu Vs. P. Lakshmi and anr
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.ORDER:1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the judgment-debtor in E.P.No.61/2010 in O.S.No.1/2009 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gooty, feeling aggrieved by order dated 6-8-2011, whereunder the amount lying in the petitioner's savings bank account was attached to the extent of Rs.60,000/- covered by the decree, in favour of the respondent. The petitioner/judgment-debtor pleaded before the lower Court that the said amount represents the retirement benefit received by him and is therefore exempted from attachment under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code"). The lower Court while rejecting the said plea observed that earlier when the amount of Rs.2,43,576/- representing gratuity and Rs.6210/- representing the GIC savings fund were attached in E.P.No.40/2010, the attachment was subsequently raised in view of the provisions of Section 60 of the Code. The lower Court, however, ordered attachment of the sum of Rs....
Kapuganti Jagannadha Gupta, So.Lakshman Vs. the District Registrar, Sr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.ORDER:1. The petitioner and respondent No.7 are the sons of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 executed a deed of gift on 15.09.2004 in favour of the petitioner transferring an item of immovable property. The petitioner states that he accepted the gift and made several improvements to the property by incurring expenditure. The 5th respondent executed a deed of cancellation of the gift on 19.09.2011 and the same was admitted to registration by the Sub Registrar, Srikakulam, the 2nd respondent. The petitioner challenges the action of the 2nd respondent in registering the document. The petitioner contends that when the gift was accepted by the donee and valuable rights have accrued, the donor has no power to revoke it. He contends that the deed of cancellation can be accepted by registering authority, only when it is executed with the consent of the parties to the transaction.2. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. He con...
Nakshatrapu Venkateswarlu Vs. Bathula Ankamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.ORDER:1. The petitioner, who is the decree holder, filed E.P.No.32 of 2001(in the certified copy of the order in the revision petition, the year of EP is shown as 1991, which is an obvious mistake for 2001) seeking execution of the decree by removing certain huts on the suit schedule property and handing over vacant possession thereof to him. This petition was dismissed by the lower Court by order, dated 07.03.2002. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition. Even though notice was served on respondent No.1, who is the judgment debtor, she has not entered appearance. At the hearing, there is no representation for her.2. I have heard Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance of an agreement of sale was decreed as far back as 16.04.1987. A.S.No.48 of 1995 filed by respondent No.1 was dismissed on 14.06.1996. The decree has, t...
G.K.Reddy Vs. G.Aswatha Reddy and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2589 o08. 02.2012 G.K.Reddy G.Aswatha Reddy and others ^Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri O.Manohar Reddy !Counsel for the respondents: Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 18.04.2011, in I.A.No.162 of 2011 in O.S.No.29 of 2008, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. The petitioner is one of the defendants in O.S.No.49 of 2005 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. While the said suit was pending, the petitioner filed O.S.No.29 of 2008 in the same Court for permanent injunction against the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed I.A.No.162 of 2011 under Section 10 r/w Section 151 CPC for stay of O.S.No.29 of 2008 on the ground that the issues raised therein are directly and substantially in issue in the suit filed by them. The lower Court has allowed the said application by order, dated 18.04.2011, and...