Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-01-1995
Reported in : 1995(3)ALT120; 1996(1)ARBLR681(AP)
P.S. Mishra, C.J. 1. The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment in W.P. Nos. 11049 and 12938 of 1990 by a learned Single Judge of this court. Facts leading to the petitioner-respondent invoking this court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are in nutshell as follows : A dispute arose between the petitioner-respondent and the appellant herein in course of the execution of a contract for sale of cement manufacturing machinery. In accordance with the arbitration Clause 12(2) of the agreement the parties, nominated their respective arbitrators and the arbitrators appointed the umpire. The arbitrators, however, gave an award on 2.2.1987 granting to the petitioner-respondent Rs. 17,74,858/- together with interest of Rs. 3,05,000/-. They, however, gave no reasons to support their award. The petitioner-respondent 17filed O.S. No. 249 of 1987 in the court of Additional Chief Judge (Temporary), Hyderabad, under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act (for short ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-07-1995
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
Decided on : Dec-20-1995
Reported in : 1996(2)ALT446
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. These batch of LPAs were filed by the oriental Insurance Company against the common Judgment of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the AAOs filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the appeals are not maintainable.2. The facts of the case are that on 31-8-1987 there was an accident involving the lorry bearing ADB1765 in which three persons died and 24 others received injuries. The injured persons filed claim petitions before 1-7-1989. The Claims Tribunal, by its common award dated 6-4-90, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and awarded compensation against the owner and driver of the lorry and also the insurance company ranging from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 7500/-. Against the said order, the insurance company filed AAOs in this Court on 5-10-1990. When the appeals came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, a preliminary objection was taken by the claimants that the appeals are not maint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-20-1995
Reported in : 1996ACJ1213
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This batch of L.P.As. was filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the common judgment of the learned single Judge in dismissing the A.A.Os. filed by the insurance company on the ground that the appeals are not maintainable.2. The facts of the case are that on 31.8.1987 there was an accident involving the lorry bearing No. ADB 1765 in which three persons died and 24 others received injuries. The injured persons filed claim petitions before 1.7.1989. The Claims Tribunal, by its common award dated 6.4.1990, held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and awarded compensation against the owner and driver of the lorry and also the insurance company ranging from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 7,500/-. Against the said order, the insurance company filed A.A.Os. in this court on 5.10.1990. When the appeals came up for hearing before the learned single Judge, a preliminary objection was taken by the claimants that the appeals are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-10-1995
Reported in : AIR1996AP113; 1995(3)ALT789
ORDER1. All these matters are between the same parties and have been the offshoots of certain common decisions between them by the trial Court and the first appellate Court, filed under various provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Actually they are between one P. Rajanna said to be a tenant in the demised premises and the owner Smt. K. Lalitha Reddy and her husband K. Venkataraniana Reddy who appears to be managing the transactions of his wife in relation to the premises. The proceedings of the trial Court (Rent Con-troller-cum-District Munsif, Madanapalle) and the appellate Court (Sub-Judge, Madanapalle) which led to the present cases in this Court are tabulated as hereunder in Table-A.Sl. No.Case No.By whom, against whomand under What provision.Name of the CourtResult with date1.R. C. C. 12/83By Mr. P. Rajanna the tenant u/S. 8(5) of the Actagainst Smt, K. Lalitha Reddy the owner (landlord) and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-27-1995
Reported in : 1995(3)ALT1; I(1996)DMC48
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The judgment and the decree of the learned District Judge, Adilabad (Mr. V.V.S. Krishna Murty) in O.S. No. 35 of 1971 dated 5.11.1982 have been the subject of assailment in this appeal. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The suit was dismissed.2. Defendant No. 3 is the father and Defendant No. 4 is the mother of the plaintiffs. The suit is filed for declaration of title and possession of the suit property which is described in the suit schedule as Survey No. 764 of Mudhole with an extent of Acs. 34-14 guntas of land. The plaintiffs claim their title to the suit property; while they were the minor, their mother Defendant No. 4 alienated the suit property in favour of Defendant No. 1 under the suit sale deed Ex. A.2 equivalent of Ex. B.I dated 16.10.1956 without consideration, without any legal necessity, under the pressure and influence of their father, defendant No. 3, who was very easy going and gay in his style...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-14-1995
Reported in : AIR1996AP5; 1995(2)ALT307
ORDERV. BHASKAR RAO, J. 1. Defendants 5 to8 in O.S. No. 73 of 1977 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada are the appellants. They filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge in A.S. No. 1770 of 1984 in dismissing the appeal and confirming the decree and the judgment of the trial court.2. The facts of the case are that the first respondent herein is the plaintiff and he is the son of the second defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant. Defendant No. 4 is the son of the third defendant. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 are members of Hindu joint family governed by Mitakshara Law. The joint family of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 owned and possessed 9 acres of wet land bearing R.S. No. 141/2 situated at Vanguturu village. The plaint schedule land is a fertile and valuable land and yielding was not less than 20 bags of paddy per acre and 40 tonnes of sugarcane per acre and it adjoins Telaprolu Vuyyuru ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-14-1995
Reported in : 1995(2)ALT320
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The common Award of Respondent No. 2, the III Labour Court, Hyderabad (Sri Syed Abdullah) dated 18-8-1993 passed in M.P. Nos. 179, 173, 176, 175, 172 and 174 of 1992 in favour of respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner is the subject and object of assail in all the writ petitions. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are common in all the writ petitions. The six writ petitions with common questions comprise for disposal in this common judgment. The petitioner is Rajendranagar Municipality. Respondent No. 1 in each of the cases claiming to be a worker/workman of the petitioner, laid a claim for recovery of over-time allowance under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was resisted by the petitioner, but allowed in the Award. The relevant particulars of the parties, the claim etc., are tabulated hereunder:SI. W.P. No. & W.P.M.P. No. Corresponding Name of Period ClaimNo. petitioner before job held of claim Labour Court (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-02-1995
Reported in : 1995(1)ALT539
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. These two revision petitions arise out of a common order passed in I.A. Nos. 931/91 and 932/91 in O.S.No. 1849/89 dated 21-2-1994 by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. I.A.No. 931/91 was filed Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 92 days in filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit dated 21-3-1991. The petitioners in these two petitions were defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff in the suit - O.S.No. 1849/89, which was filed for recovery of money based on an award. The decree was sought for Rs. 1,72,500/- with future interest as decreed. Since the defendants did not file any written statement for a long time, they were set ex parte on 7-2-91 and after recording evidence of the plaintiff by the Court, the suit was decreed ex parte on 21-3-91. The defendants filed the petitions stated above on 3-7-91. Although the delay was found to be 102 d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-17-1995
Reported in : 1995(3)ALT622; (1996)ILLJ1049AP
B. Sri Atchuthananda Swamy, J.1. Though this appeal was filed by the appellant aggrieved by the orders of the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ramaswamy, as he then was, wherein his Lordships held that the 4th respondent being the principal employer and the appellant, a contractor under it as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, hereinafter called as 'the Act', is bound to pay the same wages that are being paid by the 4th respondent to the security guards directly employed by it under Rule 25(v)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) rules, 1971 (for short 'the Rules') framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 35 of the Act. On a deeper consideration, we think it necessary to adjudicate the legality of the agreement entered into by the appellant - Company with the 4th respondent on December 11, 1980 as modified from time to time and if it is found to be ultra vires, to apportion th...
Tag this Judgment!