Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALT621
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed by the defendant who suffered an ex parte decree assailing the order of the Court below refusing to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree.2. The facts which are necessary for determination of the question involved in this Revision Petition, are as follows:The respondent herein, filed O.S. No. 3636 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, against the revision petitioner seeking a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 45,270/- with interest at 18% p.a. The Revision Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, filed written statement on 13-4-1995. After settlement of issues the suit was taken up for trial and on 11-3-1997 the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. The suit was adjourned to 21-3-1997 for the evidence of the defendant, since the defendant and her counsel were called absent, the evidence of the defendant was closed and the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1996)133CTR(AP)320; [1996]218ITR590(AP); [1996]87TAXMAN327(AP)
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. In this reference case the assessee is carrying on 'hotel business'. It claimed investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act, 1961, for short 'the Act'. The ITO negatived the claim of investment allowance on the ground that 'hotel business' could not be treated as in industrial concern which was manufacturing an article or thing. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The appellate authority took the view that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A of the Act. He also opined that there was no manufacturing or processing activity and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Against the order of the first appellate authority two appeals were filed, one by the assessee and the other by the assessing authority. Those two appeals were disposed of by a common order dt. 18th Feb., 1986. On the applications of the assessee as well as the Revenue, under s. 256(1) of the Act, the following questions are referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1977]106ITR73(AP)
Gangadhara Rao, J. 1. This petitioner, a businessman, was lucky enough to win a sum of Rs. 26,755 in horse races during the accounting year 1972-73, but he was not lucky with the income-tax department. The Income-tax Officer, Nellore, added that amount to his other income for the assessment year 1973-74. Questioning the validity of that order the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Prior to 1st April, 1972, winnings in horse races were not eligible to income-tax. By the Finance Act, 1972, Clause (ix) was added to Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which defines 'income'. Now, according to Section 2(24)(ix) of the Income-tax Act, income includes any winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races including horse races, card games and other games of any sort or from gambling or betting of any form or nature whatsoever. 3. In this writ petition Sri S. Dasaratharama Reddi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, questions the vires of Clause (ix). According to him, Parlia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970AP194
ORDER1. The 4th defendant in O. S. No. 305/1967 on the file of the Court of District Munsif of Narasaraopet in Guntur District seeks a transfer of the suit to the Court of District Munsif of Bodhan in Nizamabad District. The suit is laid by the plaintiff for a permanent injunction restraining the several defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the properties mentioned in the A, B, and C schedulers annexed to the plaint. A schedule properties are lands situated in Jakora village in Nizamabad District while B and C schedule properties are a house and house site situated in Mulakalur and Chimalamani in Guntur District. The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to all the properties as the heir of his adoptive father Kutumba Rao, as also under a will executed by the said Kutumba Rao. Defendants 1 to 4 are stated to be residents of Sri Nagar in Nizamabad District while defendants 5 and 6 are residents of Mulakalur in Guntur District. A single suit is laid in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963AP58
Satyanarayana Raju, J. 1. The Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd., is the appellant in all these appeals. The appeals are presented against common judgment of the Court of the District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in O.S. Nos. 30, 53 and 54 of 1954 which were all instituted by the appellant herein as the plaintiff against various defendants. The suits were instituted claiming reliefs for an alleged infringement of the trade mark of the plaintiff in relation to cement concrete pipes manufactured and sold by the plaintiff and of the patent registered in relation to the said cement concrete pipes. 2. The plaintiff's case in brief is that it is a long standing manufacturer and seller of cement concrete pipes under the trade mark and name 'Hume Pipes' and 'Humeogenous Pipes'. The said pipes manufactured by it acquired reputation in India and other countries. The Company had registered the said trade marks with the Registrar of Trade Marks under the Trade Marks Act of 1940 (Act V of 1940) as Nos. 13...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961AP483
Seshachalapati, J. 1. These three connected appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the decision of Sanjeevarao Naidu, J. L.P.A. 77/60 and L.P.A. 107/59 arise out of the learned Judge's decision in A. S. No. 252 of 1957. L.P.A. No. 101 of 1959 arises out of the order of the learned Judge in C.M.P. No. 7142 of 1959 in A, S. No. 252 of 1957.2. We will first deal with L.P.A. 77/60 which arises out of A. S. 252/57. That appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Anantapur in O.P. No. 39/52 converted as O. S. 23/56. It will be necessary to state briefly the facts connected with that suit.3. The 1st respondent before us, Tharigopala Pedda Narayanappa had certain dealings with the 'Rayalaseema Bank Ltd.' (appellant before us), in respect of which the Bank claimed that a sum of Rs. 7560/- was due from the 1st respondent. The dispute was referred to Meduthula Narayanappa, the second respondent as sole arbitrator, on 2-9-1949. The arbit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD370; 2002(2)ALT250
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. In these writ petitions, the constitutional validity of Sub-rule (5-A) of Rule 17 of A.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short, APGST Rules) as inserted by way of amendment vide G.O. Ms. No. 816 Revenue (CT. II) Department dated 15-11-2000 is assailed. The first petitioner in WP No.20211 of 2001 is the Andhra Sales Tax Practitioners and Consultants Association whereas petitioners 2 and 3 are Sales Tax Practitioners. The petitioners, 23 in all, in WP No.20152 of 2001 are the traders and registered dealers under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, APGST Act.)2. The following are the material averments in the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition No.20211 of 2001.(i) Section 35 of APGST Act provides that any person who is entitled to appear before any authority may be represented, inter alia by a Sales Tax Practitioner who is duly authorized in writing in this behalf. Under the provisions of Rule 63 of the APGST Rules, 1957, the procedure for regis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(6)ALD562; 2004(1)ALT195; 2004(1)ARBLR319(AP)
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. The petitioner, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, had filed the present O.P. under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as 'Act' in short, praying for the relief to set aside the award dated 28-2-1991 made by Sri Gurucharan Singh, Umpire, 12, Palam Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi 110057, shown as 1st respondent in the O.P., relating to the work of construction of land based works at Lova Gardens which is C-2 works and marine works and break water construction, which is C-3 works. The Contractor M/s. Continental Constructions Limited, Continental House, 28, Place, New Delhi 110018, is shown as 2nd respondent in the O.P.2. The O.P. was filed in the matter of C.M.A. No.162/80 and C.M.A. No. 1189/82, The petitioner, no doubt, had raised several grounds in the main O.P. and also in the supplemental statement to the said O.P. on objections filed by M/s. Continental Construction Limited, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD158; 1998(2)ALT569
ORDERC.V.N. Sastri, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the wife questioning the decree of annulment of marriage granted by the lower court under Section 12(1) (c) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the application filed by the respondent-husband. The respondent filed the application for annulment of marriage on the ground that the appellant was suffering from a disease known as 'Hyper Prolactinemia with Galloctorrhea' in medical parlance with symptoms like continuous lactation of milk from her breasts and irregular menstruation due to which she is incapable of bearing children and that his consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud and wilful suppression of the said facts.2. The respondent is an Engineer employed in the Thermal Power Station at Paloncha in Khammam District. The case of the respondent as set out in the Original Petition filed by him and as it appears from his evidence as PW1 is as follows :The marriage of the respondent with the appellant took place on 8-2-1989 at G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(5)ALD807; 2004(5)ALT755
1. The judicial somersault for a decade in the hands of the Division Benches and the Full Bench and the decisional upheavals inherent in the system continue to make the litigant under the perennial predicament and speculation. This is one such instance, we are called upon to clear the riddles.2. The matter is brought before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge (BPRJ) in regard to the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court reported in Motichand Jain v. Jaikumar M, : AIR2004AP136 (FB).3. The issue that arises for consideration is(a) Whether A.P. Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 30 of 1989 is retrospective or prospective in operation?(b) Whether there is any distinction between vested right and right to forum? 4. The Andhra Pradesh Civil Court Act, 1972 was brought into statute book with effect from 1.11.1972. The pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts both original and appellate and as also the forum are being amended from time to time. By A.P. Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 3...
Tag this Judgment!