Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2010(1)ALT165
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. These Writ Appeals are filed against common order dated 25-8-2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 26590, 26591, 26592, 26598 and 26603 of 1999. While Writ Appeal Nos. 1670, 1691 and 1713 of 2000 and 9 of 2001 were filed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies/OSD/Arbitrator (for short 'the Arbitrator'), the other Writ Appeals were filed by the Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Hyderabad (for short 'the Bank').2. Respondent No. 1 in each of these appeals is either a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 or a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. They are admittedly members of the Bank. Respondent No. 1 in each of these appeals borrowed huge amounts as loans from the Bank and failed to repay the same. Therefore, the Bank approached the Arbitrator with claim statements for passing of awards under Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2006AP121; 2006(2)ALD98; 2006(2)ALT228
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.18 of 1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.2. Respondent-plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,10,350.07 ps. with future interest at the rate of 14.5% per annum till the date of realization. The same was resisted by way of filing written statement and after settlement of issues recorded the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and DW.1 and on appreciation of documentary evidence Exs.Al to A16 and Ex.B1, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, ultimately decreed the suit for Rs.1,60,073/- with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization along with costs.3. In view of the fact that the pending interest has been negatived, respondent-plaintiff filed cross-objections questioning the same.Pleadings of the Parties :4. Respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount as already referred to supra. It was pleaded in Paragraphs 3 to 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD523
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 21.1.1999 passed by the first respondent and the demand notice dated 8.2.1999 issued by the second respondent as arbitrary and illegal.2. It is the case of the petitioner that himself and four others entered into partnership in the name and style of 'Sri Ganesh Gayathree Gruha Nirman' to carry on the business of real estate. The petitioner got 50 per cent share in the said firm and has contributed his house site admeasuring 843 square yards situated in Kakinada Municipality in T.S.No. 17, towards his share in the firm, and a partnership deed, dated 29.7.1995, to that effect was executed, and registered. However, the second respondent issued a demand notice dated 5.8.1996 to the petitioner demanding him to pay the stamp duty to a tune of Rs. 81,822.50 construing the said partnership deed as sale deed and also fixing the value of the site at Rs. 6,81,650/-. Pursuant to that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(2)ALT319
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. In this Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 4-4-2003, passed by the 1 Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, allowing the application I.A.No. 141 of 2003 in O.S.No. 135 of 2002, filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein, seeking his impleadment as defendant No. 6 to the suit.2. Respondent No. 1 filed suit O.S.No. 135 of 2002 for dissolution of partnership firm, namely respondent No. 6-Green Acres Poultry Farm and obtained an order of injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties against the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 therein. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that the suit properties belong to the partnership firm, and that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 sold the suit schedule properties in favour of one M. Prabhakar under registered agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A., and therefore, he filed the present I.A. seeking his impleadment as a necessary and proper party to the said suit. Aggrieved by the order passed by the court allowing t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(4)ALD737; 2005(5)ALT88; II(2006)BC260; [2005]127CompCas199(AP); (2005)6CompLJ355(AP); [2006]68SCL448(AP)
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. By this petition under Sections 433(e), 434(1)(a) and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the Act') the petitioner is seeking an order of winding up of the respondent company on the ground that the respondent company is unable to pay of its debts.2. It is stated that the petitioner is a Partnership Firm in the name and style of 'M/s. Jumgo Cotton Enterprises', incorporated under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act with its office at 416, Navketan Building 62, S.D. Road, Secunderabad. The petitioner was engaged in the business of Ready Cotton Bales, Yarn and other related goods and conversion of cotton to yarn etc. It is stated that M/s. The Rayalaseema Mills Limited, the respondent herein was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, with its registered office and the factory at Rayanagar, Adoni, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. The respondent company had its issued, subscribed and paid up capital of Rs. 39,71,200/- divided ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(3)ALD457; 2006(3)ALT510
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The general impression is that Arbitration is a speedier and more effective remedy, when compared to the adjudication by Courts. This case provides an example to demonstrate that the statement is partly true.2. One Sri Shaik Mohammed was carrying on business of skin tanning a Leather Exports at Warangal. He constituted a partnership firm in the year 1972, with himself and his four sons, as partners. Two years thereafter, another firm by name Shaikoo, was constituted with a slightly different composition of the same family. Shaik Mohammed died on 1-4-1981. The firms were reconstituted by holding his widow, in the first firm. The business was expanded and extended to Madras also.3. Disputes arose among the partners of the two firms. One Sri Abdul Khader, the 2nd respondent herein, was appointed as an Arbitrator. He passed an award dated 5-9-1995. Petitioners herein filed O.S. No. 258 of 1995 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1986]158ITR773(AP)
Amareswari, J.1. The question referred for our decision is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a valid partnership in law ?' 2. An interesting question indeed. Phabiomal Mulchand Mirpuri and, is three sons, Jiwatram, Gopichand and Bhagchand, who own a building in common entered into an agreement of partnership to let out the building and share the rents. The deed of partnership executed on May 1, 1974, recites that the firm's business shall be realising rents from letting out the building. The firm applied for registration under section 185(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1975-76 and for continuation of the benefit of registration for the year 1976-77. By order dated October 14, 1976, the Income-tax Officer refused registration and made the assessment treating the assessee as a body of individuals. The Income-tax Officer took the view that no business is carri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD554
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court by an order-dated 28-8-2001 has referred the following questions to a Division Bench.1. Whether the ground of wilful default will not be available to a landlord even if the irregular payment or rents had been clearly established on the sole ground that the landlord had received the rents before the institution of the RCC despite the fact that the rents were received by the landlord on protest and without prejudice to his rights?2. What is the effect of the ratio laid down in Dakaya Alias Dakaiah v. Anjani, : AIR1996SC383 , K.A. Ramesh and Ors. v. Susheela Bai, : [1998]1SCR892 , and M. Bhaskar, v. J. Venkatarama Naidu, : (1996)6SCC228 .3. Whether doctrine of waiver can be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case?4. Whether running of business by a family member in the name of the firm will amount to sub-letting within the meaning of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 in the light o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(3)ALD599; 1999(3)ALT431
ORDER1. Heard.2. This writ petitioner is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the notice of termination issued to the petitioner vide proceedings No.SE/OP/MBNR/PO(R)/CRS/CS/NO/308/ 98, dated 21-3- 1998 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same. A further direction is sought to continue the entrustment of the work of billing in pursuance of the agreement dated 30-12- 1988.3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitionerCompany is a Chartered Accountant firm known as Varadachari and Company. It entered into an agreement with the Superintending Engineer/Operation, Rural Circle of the A.P.S.E.B., Hyderabad, for maintenance of accounts of the Sub-ERO/ Gadwal in the year 1988 vide letter dated 30-12-1988 and since then the petitioner Company has been maintaining the accounts in respect of the slab card service of the specified areas in the areas of Alampur, Manopad, Itekyal, Wadepally, leez, Maldakal, Gatto, Gadwal and Dharoo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1957]32ITR274(AP)
Subba Rao, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of our learned brother Satyanarayana Raju, J., dismissing the application filed by the appellant under article 226 of the Constitution of India The appellant is a partner of the firm of Messrs. Gopala Krishna Manure Depot and Turmeric Co., Tenali. Before 1947, the firm was assessed to income-tax as an unregistered firm. Admittedly, the appellant was not assessed to income-tax at any time before 1947-48 as an individual. The Additional Income-tax Officer, Tenali Circle, for the first time assessed the appellant to income-tax as an individual for the assessment year 1947-48 on a taxable income of Rs. 39, 080 and determined the tax payable at Rs. 12, 385-1-0. Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Madras. In the appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner gave him some relief. On further appeal to the Tribunal, the tax payable was reduced to Rs. 2, 479-11-0. Pending the appea...
Tag this Judgment!