Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002AIHC4012; 2002(4)ALT120; 2002(2)LS161
ORDERG. Rohini, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.1102 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed this Civil Revision Petition being aggrieved by the order dated 3.10.2001 in I.A.No.1348 of 2001 condoning the delay of 379 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree obtained by him. 2. The relevant facts briefly are as follows:The Revision Petitioner filed O.S.No.1102 of 1995 against the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the respondents 2 and 3 herein seeking recovery of Rs.96,800/- by way of damages together with interest 18% p.a. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 28.7.2000 since the defendants failed to file written statements. Thereafter on 6.9.2001 the State of Andhra Pradesh, the first defendant, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the ex parte decree along with I.A.No.1348 of 2000 seeking to condone the delay of 379 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC.In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 26.11.2007 in CTA.No.161 of 2004 on the file of the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal. The facts, in brief, are as under: The 1st respondent herein is a member of the Army Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2nd respondent society'). The 1st respondent, who was allotted Flat No.73 in Sector-A, AWHO Colony, Secunderabad, by the 2nd respondent society, entered into an Agreement dated 12.10.1997 to sell the said flat to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that substantial amounts were paid to the 1st respondent towards sale consideration. However as the 1st respondent did not come forward to complete the sale transaction, the petitioner raised a dispute before the 4th respondent - The Arbitrator/Divisional Co-operative Officer. By Award dated 19.5.2004 the 4th respondent directed the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD899; 2003(3)ALT114
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J. 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the entertainment of P.O.P. No.806 of 2002 and the order in I.A.No. 3817 of 2002 dated 14.11.2002 in the said P.O.P. on the file of the District Judge, Cuddapah.2. The first respondent herein filed the said POP No.806 of 2002 on the file of the District Judge, Cuddapah to accord permission permitting her to file a suit to declare her as a pauper and permit her to sue as in forma pauper. Pending the suit she filed LA. No.3817 of 2002 for grant of temporary injunction prohibiting the 2nd respondent herein from paying the compensation amount in respect of the suit schedule property to the petitioners herein who are the defendants in the said suit. The suit was filed for the following reliefs: (a) to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the compensation amount awarded in respect of 'A' schedule property; (b) To grant permanent injunction restraining defendant N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1982AP182
ORDER1. The first petitioner is an Assistant Section Officer in the Home Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. He along with the second petitioner are residing as tenants in House No. 3-6-766 Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, for more than ten years. The house in which these two petitioners are living is a house which belongs to the third respondent-landlady and falls under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 A house that so falls under the Rent Control Act could not have been let out privately except in compliance with the requirements of Sec, 3 (1) (a) of the Rent Control Act. That section requires a lady owner to first notify vacancy of her building and wait for fifteen days. After expiry of that period alone, the landlady could have privately let out her building provided the building is not within that period legally allotted by the authorised officer. The landlady in this case violated all this law. On the ground that the third respondent-la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(3)ALT51
Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a suit for partition of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties into two equal shares and separate possession of one such share in their favour. Out of that half share they claimed that the first plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share, the second plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share and the first defendant being entitled to the remaining half share.2. The partition was sought in respect of matruka properties left by late Mohammad Hasan Ali (hereinafter referred to as 'Hasan Ali'3. The suit was contested by the first defendant claiming all the plaint schedule properties as his exclusive properties. Defendants 2 to 4, on the other hand, claimed item No. 6 of plaint 'A' schedule and item Nos. 1 to 3 of plaint 'B' schedule under an oral gift. During the pendency of the suit I.A.No. 541 of 1982 was filed by the plaintiffs for deletion of item Nos. 4 and 5 of plaint 'A' schedule property. The learned First Additional Judge, City C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1962]13STC45(AP)
ORDERChandrasekhara Sastry, J.1. The petitioner in these cases is the State of Andhra Pradesh and the respondent is the assessee under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The respondent is a dealer in motor spare parts etc. The respondent-firm was assessed to sales tax on a turnover of Rs. 84,740-12-9. Subsequently, the special staff seized some account books from the respondent-firm and revised the assessment by including an escaped turnover of Rs. 66,000 disclosed from the books seized. The appeal by the respondent-firm to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was dismissed, but a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, was allowed. The Appellate Tribunal held that a Special Commercial Tax Officer, who revised the assessment, has no jurisdiction to do so. Hence the State of Andhra Pradesh has filed this tax revision case.2. The short question for decision is whether under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, and the Rules and the notifications ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1996)IILLJ475AP
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. As desired by both the sides, the main writ petition is being disposed of along with the W.P.M.P. No. 13613/94 and W.V.M.P. No. 2154/94.2. The order of suspension of petitioner, an employee of respondent No. 1, dated June 9, 1993 is assailed and sought to be quashed in this petition. Originally, he was appointed by Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Poth-unoor, Chintalapudi Mandal as a Paid Secretary on Decembers, 1977 and two years later, he was transferred to Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (P.A.C.S.), Madhyanapuvarigudem. The common cadre of Secretaries were abolished with effect from April 22, 1994 and they were declared as Secretaries of the Society under Section 116-AA of the Co-operative Societies Act. The Collector was designated as the Registrar who was to allot them to various societies in the district as per the guidelines issued under Rule 72 of the A.P. Co-operative Society Rules. The petitioner claims that he was not allotted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainant in C.D. 198/95 District Forum, Ranga , Reddy on 25.4.1995 sent a demand draft purchased from S.B.I. Murudu for Rs. 50,000/- in favour of his brother's son Brahmaiah of P and T Colony, Dilsukhnagar for purchasing some cloth at Hyderabad and to send the cloth to him. As he did not receive the cloth or any communication from Brahmaiah, a complaint was given on 12.6.1995 to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Osmanabad and Post Master, Murudu and sent a telegram to the Post Master, Dilsukhnagar Post Office, on 3.7.1995, for which a reply was received from Superintendent of Post Offices, Osmanabad regretting for the loss of registered letter. Thereafter, the complainant submitted representations to the Commissioner of Police and Post Master General etc., and learnt that the registered letter reached the post office, P and T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad and that opposite party No. 3 who is a contingent postman attached to the second oppo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1985)46CTR(AP)238; [1985]152ITR753(AP)
Anjaneyulu, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax these reference were made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question referred in all the three cases is identical and it will be convenient to deal with the same in this common judgment. 2.The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short, 'the Electricity Board'), the respondent in these reference made certain payments to non-residents against the purchase of machinery and equipment and also against the work executed by the non-residents in India of erecting and commissioning the machinery and equipment. The question arose whether the Electricity Board was under an obligation to deduct tax at source from these payments under s. 195 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The payments were made by the Electricity Board without deduction of tax at source. The ITO held that the Electricity Board was under an obligation to deduct tax at source under s. 195. Owing to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1997]88CompCas596(AP)
D.H. Nasir, J.1. Company Application No. 46 of 1995 has been made by Novopan India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferor company') and Company Application No. 47 of 1995 has been made by G.V.K. Hotels Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferee company') under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), seeking a direction of convene the meeting of the shareholders of the applicant companies for considering the proposed scheme of arrangement for amalgamation of the two companies. The scheme inter alia contemplates transfer of business, assets and liabilities of the transferor company to the transferee company and also allotment of shares of the transferee company to the shareholders of the transferor company. Both the companies are having their registered office at Hyderabad. One of the main objectives of the transferor and transferee companies is to establish a complex of industries manufacturing particle boards and to conduct business in such ...
Tag this Judgment!