Posts

Showing posts from August, 2014

The provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 have not been engrafted in the Code so as to patch up the weak points in the case and to fill up the omission in the court of appeal it does not authorise any lacunae or gaps in evidence to be filled up. (N. Kamalam v. Ayyasamy ). The appellate court should not, ordinarily, allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable a party to raise a new point in appeal. (Haji Mohammed Ishaq v. Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Ali and Co. ; and Ibrahim Uddin30). The requirement of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC must be limited to those cases where it is found necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling the Court to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where, even without such evidence, it can pronounce judgment in a case. (Lala Pancham26; Ibrahim Uddin30; Lala Pancham26; N. Kamalam32). =CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.735 OF 2014 08-08-2014 K. Chengalraya Chetty (died) and others..Petitioners Smt.Gomatheeswari.. Respondent = 2014-Aug.Part-http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11807

The provisions
of Order 41 Rule 27 have not been engrafted in the Code so as to
patch up the weak points in the case and to fill up the omission in
the court of appeal  it does not authorise any lacunae or gaps in
evidence to be filled up. (N. Kamalam v. Ayyasamy ). The
appellate court should not, ordinarily, allow new evidence to be
adduced in order to enable a party to raise a new point in appeal.
(Haji Mohammed Ishaq v. Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Ali and Co. ;
and Ibrahim Uddin30).  The requirement of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
must be limited to those cases where it is found necessary to
obtain such evidence for enabling the Court to pronounce
judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate court to let
in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where, even without such
evidence, it can pronounce judgment in a case. (Lala Pancham26;
Ibrahim Uddin30; Lala Pancham26; N. Kamalam32).  

2014-Aug.Part-http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11807

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN          

CIVIL…

Se. 6 of ULC Act - Land declared as with in limits of ceiling - Sec.4 of L.A.Act - Govt. acquired the same land for purpose of Telephone Department - request to Review the award as per sec.26 of ULC Act not permissible - Award passed along with statutory benefits - Award become final due dismissal of SLP by S.C.- E.P. filed - objection under sec.26 of ULC Act - and also writ was field - their Lordships held that By its very nature, the option provided for under Section 26 comes into play only when the owner of the land expresses intention to sell it. It was not even alleged that respondent Nos.1 and 2 expressed their intention to sell it. Therefore, the question of the State Government choosing to exercise its option to purchase it does not arise. At any rate, the petitioner does not figure anywhere in the picture in a situation contemplated under Section 26 of the ULC Act. It is ultimately for the State Government, not for the Land Acquisition Officer to take a decision under Section 26 of the ULC Act. The petitioner is under a misconception that even where the land is acquired by invoking the provisions of the LA Act, Section 26 of the ULC Act comes into play. One has to keep in mind, the distinction between the voluntary transfers on the one hand and involuntary transfers on the other hand. The transfer that takes place as a result of initiation of proceedings under the LA Act, is, beyond any pale of doubt, an involuntary one. The acquisition is done irrespective of the intention of the owner, and many a time, in spite of the opposition to it. Therefore, occasion to invoke Section 26 of the ULC Act, in the event of any transfer taking place as a result of acquisition by invoking the provisions of the LA Act, does not exist. The acceptance of the contention of the petitioner by the executing Court would have the effect of reviewing, if not setting aside the order passed by this Court as confirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in the S.L.P filed by the petitioner itself. Such a course is totally impermissible. In addition to that, the learned Presiding Officer of the executing Court has referred to several judgments in support of his conclusion that all the statutory benefits under the LA Act are extendable to non-surplus lands, acquired by the Government. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the executing Court. The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. =CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4916 OF 2012 18-07-2014 The General Manager (Planning), O/o the P.G.M., Hyderabad Telecom District,BSNL Bhavan, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad - 50063... PETITIONER S. Sunandan Reddy @ R. Lakshminarayana Reddy and two others RESPONDENTS = 2014 - July-Part - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11794

Se. 6 of ULC Act - Land declared as with in limits of ceiling - Sec.4 of L.A.Act - Govt. acquired the same land for purpose of Telephone Department - request to Review the award as per sec.26 of ULC Act not permissible - Award passed along with statutory benefits - Award become final due dismissal of SLP by S.C.- E.P. filed - objection under sec.26 of ULC Act - and also writ was field - their Lordships held that  By its very nature, the option provided for under Section 26 comes into play only when the owner of the land expresses intention to sell it.  It
was not even alleged that respondent Nos.1 and 2 expressed  their intention to sell it.  
Therefore, the question of the State Government choosing to exercise its option to purchase it
does not arise.   At any rate, the petitioner does not figure anywhere in the picture in a situation contemplated under Section 26 of the ULC Act.  It is ultimately for the State Government, not for the Land Acquisition Officer to take a decision under Se…

suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, being an apartment in the Prakashnagar Area of Secunderabad. Relief of execution of sale deed in respect of the property and re-registration thereof was also claimed. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment dated 10-12-2009. - Appeal was also dismissed - Second Appeal - their lordships held that a Def. No.1/General power of attorney holder can not cancelled the Reg. Sale Deed executed by /Def.2 and 3 real owners infavour of plaintiff unilaterally with out the knowledge of plaintiff who is out of India - Nominal Sale deed can not be pleaded against the recitals of sale deed as per sec.91,92 of Indian Evidence act - only remedy of defendants is under sec.55 of T.P.Act - No bonafides on the plea of defendants - second appeal was dismissed = Second Appeal No.406 of 2014 15-07-2014 V. Chandramohan..appellant J. Venkatagopal and others..Respondents = 2014- July- Part - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11789

suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, being an apartment in the Prakashnagar Area of Secunderabad.  Relief of execution of sale deed in respect of the property and re-registration thereof was also claimed.  The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment dated 10-12-2009. - Appeal was also dismissed - Second Appeal - their lordships held that a Def. No.1/General power of attorney holder can not cancelled the Reg. Sale Deed executed by /Def.2 and 3 real owners infavour of plaintiff unilaterally with out the knowledge of plaintiff who is out of India - Nominal Sale deed can not be pleaded against the recitals of sale deed as per sec.91,92 of Indian Evidence act - only remedy of defendants is under sec.55 of T.P.Act - No bonafides on the plea of defendants - second appeal was dismissed = 

The 1st defendant is not the owner of the property.
It was
defendants 2 and 3, that have executed Ex.A-1.
The participation
of the 1s…

Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 - Pending Revision for the year 1997-98 filed an application under the scheme - with out passing orders in that application, first dismissed the revision and later dismissed this application - their lordships held that The approach of the 1st respondent is totally untenable, apart from being opposed to the letter and spirit of the Scheme. In a way, he has read certain aspects into the Scheme, which the parliament did not intend to. The mere fact that a revision, which was pending before him was dismissed, cannot constitute the basis to deny the relief under the Scheme. We have taken similar view in W.P.No.16170 of 2000 and batch. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. =Writ Petition No.5358 of 1999 09-07-2014 East India Petroleum Limited.appellant. The Commissioner of Income Tax and another...Respondents = 2014 - July. Part - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11614

Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 - Pending Revision for the year 1997-98 filed an application under the scheme - with out passing orders in that application, first dismissed the revision and later dismissed this application - their lordships held that The approach of the 1st respondent is totally untenable, apart from being opposed to the letter and spirit of the Scheme.  In a
way, he has read certain aspects into the Scheme, which the parliament did not intend to.  The mere fact that a revision, which was pending before him was dismissed, cannot constitute the basis to deny the relief under the Scheme.  We have taken similar view in W.P.No.16170 of 
2000 and batch.  We, therefore, allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. =

In the assessment year 1997-98, the Assessing Authority passed
an order, dated 18.03.1998, taking the view that the sum covered by
prima facie adjustment of Rs.79,86,590/-, under Section 143(1)(a) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act), was n…

Income tax sec.36 - claimed certain benefits for the years 1989-90 & 1990-91 - Rs.3 lakhs for as revenue expenditure and another claim - exemption from payment of interest on the loan borrowed - ITAO discarded the first as Rs.3 lakhs was spent for constructions, it should be treated as capital expenditure and another claim was rejected as the borrowed amount was spent for sister concern but not this Hotel - Appeal was allowed by commissioner , Tribunal too dismissed the Revenue second appeals - their Lordships held that commissioner and Tribunal both failed to consider that the Building is owned or leased and failed to consider whether the construction work was permanent or semi permanent and failed to consider that whether the assessment becomes final or not and as such remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh disposal = I.T.T.A. Nos. 87 of 2001 and batch 01-07-2014 The Commissioner of Income Tax.... APPELLANT M/s.Hotel Krishna, Lakdikapul, Hyd....RESPONDENT = 2014 - July. Part - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11595

Income tax sec.36 - claimed certain benefits for the years 1989-90 & 1990-91 - Rs.3 lakhs for as revenue expenditure and another claim - exemption from payment of interest on the loan borrowed - ITAO discarded the first as Rs.3 lakhs was spent for constructions, it should be treated as capital expenditure and another claim was rejected as the borrowed amount was spent for sister concern but not this Hotel - Appeal was allowed by commissioner , Tribunal too dismissed the Revenue second appeals - their Lordships held that commissioner and Tribunal both failed to consider that the Building is owned or leased and failed to consider whether the construction work was permanent or semi permanent and failed to consider that whether the assessment becomes final or not and as such remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh disposal = 

In the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91,
it claimed
certain benefits under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the
Tribunal).
The first is about treating a…