Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-15-1987
Reported in : AIR1988AP215
ORDER1. This review petition raises two questions of law :1. Whether a letters patent appeal lay to a Division Bench against an appellate order of single Judge in an appeal under O. 43, R.1, C.P.C. read with S. 104(1), C.P.C. and whether S. 104(2) was a bar to the maintainability of a Letters patent appeal under cl.15 of the Letters Patent and consequently whether this review petition is not maintainable? 2. Whether in the case of a sale or a share in the hypotheca by some of the co- mortgagors to the usufructuary mortgagee, S. 60 of the T.P. Act requires the non- alienating co-mortgagor to sue for redemption of his own share and whether, if the sale in favour of the mortgagee is pending the suit filed for redemption and possession of the whole Property, S. 52 of the T.P. Act requires the mortgagee to first surrender possession of the entire property and then sue for partition and possession.? 2. I shall initially deal with the first question mentioned above and 1 shall deal with the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-03-1987
Reported in : [1987]168ITR393(AP)
K. Ramaswamy, J. 1. The assessee is the Andhra Pradesh Riding Club registered under the Societies Registration Act. Article 2 of the articles of the club postulates its object thus : 'The object of the Club is to promote and popularise riding, mounted sports, racing and polo, and to train its members 'especially' the student members, in the art of horsemanship.' 2. Article 3 provides for membership and empowers the managing committee to admit desirable persons of either sex to ordinary membership as well as bona fide students of any educational or vocational or technical institution to student membership. Article 5 authorises that the club shall maintain a school of equestrian games with well-qualified riding instructors to impart instruction in riding. Article 6 provides that the school shall conduct riding classes twice a week, and attendance at these shall be compulsory for student members, at least once a week. Article 20 gives power to the managing committee to reject any applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-19-1987
Reported in : [1989]176ITR160(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Three identical questions are referred in these references. The assessee is common. The questions referred are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no legal impediment to a major entering into a contractual relationship with others, respectively, from a point of time when he or she was a minor (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the partnership agreement dated January 4, 1972, did not, in any case, have the effect of making Shashi Rani liable for losses occurring or arising during her minority, though the partnership was stipulated to commence from a point of time when she was a minor (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the partnership was not opposed to any of the provisions of the Excise Act or the rules thereunder and was not vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-20-1987
Reported in : AIR1988AP99
ORDERJagannadha Rao, J.1. Several important questions relating to the computation of the present value of future earnings or losses arise in this appeal. The principles of law that I propose to discuss will be useful not only for computing damages in claims by the injured but also in claims by dependants of deceased persons. The object to evolve a simple and easy method which, at the same time, is scientifically valid. 2. The Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act was dealing, in this case, with the claim of a person injured in an accident on July 30th 1978 consequent to which the claimant's right leg below the knee was amputated. At that time, the claimant-respondent was aged 35 years and was working as a technician in the Merchant Navy. In a claim for Rs. two lakhs, the Tribunal awarded Rs. one lakh. The owner of the motor vehicle which was responsible for the injury to the respondent, the appellant before me. Sri C. Sadasiva Reddi, the learned counsel for the appellant has mainly con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-24-1987
Reported in : AIR1988AP77
Jagannadha Rao, J.1. All these cases arise under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Act 21 of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They raise questions concerning the rights of protected tenants and the statutory conferment of ownership rights on them under S. 38-E of the Act. In Chinnaboini Narsaiah v. Tahslidar, Mahaboobabad, Warangal District, (1979) I Andh WR (HC) 23 a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Madhava Reddy, J. (as he then was) and Narsinga Rao J. had occasion to deal with S. 38-E and connected provisions of the Act. After the said judgment, the Legislature amended the Act by the Amending Act 2 of 1979. Subsequent to the said amendment to the Act, the same questions were again raised before another Division Bench of this Court in Chennaiah v. State of A. P. : AIR1983AP34 consisting of K. Ramachandra Rao, J. (as he then was) and Sriramulu, J. In the order of reference now made to the Full Bench, it is pointed out by the l...
Tag this Judgment!