Andhra Pradesh Court June 1966 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad and ors. Vs. Phool Chand Mo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP103
Jaganmohan Reddy, J. 1. Our learned brother, Gopalakrishnan Nair, J.. had issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellants Government not to enforce the notices issued by them on 14-6-63 purporting to be under the Gold Control Rules, to the respondents in respect of their business as pawn-brokers, against which this writ appeal has been filed. 2. The respondents are dealers in gold within the meaning of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules 1963 (hereinafter referred to a 'the Gold Control Rules') made under the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Defence of India Act (LI of 1962). These Rules, which are contained in Part XII-A of the Defence of India Rules 1962. were inserted by an amendment in 1963. The respondents are also doing business as pawn-brokers. It was their contention in the writ petition filed on 18-6-1963 that while pawnbrokers are exempt from filing any statement as to the jewellery pledged with them, they were asked by a notice issued to them on 14-8-1963 to giv...
Bommidala Poornaish Vs. the Union of India
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1967AP338
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.(1) This appeal has been referred to a Bench by our learned brother Basi Reddy, J having regard to the general importance on certain questions arising in the case namely:-(1) Does the bar of limitation prescribed by sub-section (2) of Sec. 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, apply to a suit of the nature out of which this appeal arises, viz., a suit for a declaration that the order of the Collector, Central Excise, levying penalty and duty on certain tobacco is illegal? (2) If the said provision does apply, then which is the crucial order for purposes of limitation, the order of the Collector, or the order passed by the Government of India on revision? And (3) The admissibility of the opinion of an expert without the expert being examined.(2) The appellant-plaintiff is a licensed tobacco trader in Guntur. He had entered into a contract on 1-6-1965 with a Japan Monopoly through the Tokyo Food Products Ltd., for supply of 500 bales of tobacco from 1955 crop ...
Balusu Anandu and ors. Vs. Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-1966
Reported in: [1968]21STC424(AP)
ORDERGopal Rao Ekbote, J. 1. The six petitioners before me carry on their business at Kakinada. They were assessed under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act for the year 1963-64. The petitioners submitted their returns and claimed certain deductions in their turnovers. They filed their returns before the Commercial Tax Officer. The Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions), Kakinada, inspected the business premises of the petitioners-assessees on different dates. During this inspection, he found that some transactions had not been entered in the returns and that the petitioners were trying to evade the payment of sales tax. The Special Commercial Tax Officer therefore issued notices to these petitioners on different dates asking them to explain as to why their assessment should not be made by him. It is to impugn these notices that these writ petitions are filed before this Court.2. The first contention of Mr. T. Anantha Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the a...
N. Desaiah and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP5; (1969)IILLJ88AP
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central Government and to the State Government of Andhra Pradesh (1) directing both the Government's not to take any action likely to prejudice the rights of the petitioners accruing from the decision taken by the Government of India contained in the letter No. 11/54/58 S.R. (s) dated 29th October 1959 and that taken by the State Government contained in G.O. Ms. No. 227 dated 31-1-1963 and (2) more particularly restraining the State Government from implementing the Central Government's decision permitting the Assistant Surgeons of erstwhile Hyderabad State to count their continuous service in the Health Wing prior to 1-11-1956 for purposes of promotion to the grade of Assistant Director of Public Health, Andhra Pradesh.2. The petitioners are from the service personnel of the Public Health department of the State of Andhra Pradesh...
N.V. Subba Rao and ors. Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP98
ORDER1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari seeking to quash G.O. Ms. No. 789, M.A., dated 4-7-1963. It arises in the following circumstances.2. The petitioners have their houses either owned by them or living as tenants situated within a distance of ft furlong from the bone factory owned by the third respondent. It is contended by the petitioners that the Barkatpura locality, where this factory is situated, is a residential locality. The third respondent obtained a licence for running a factory for stacking and crushing bones for being used as fertilisers and other purposes. He used to slack bones in huge quantities in open space as there are no godowns and consequently it used to emanate foul smell whenever there was a slight drizzle and the factory used to emanate unbearable pungent smell making the life of the residents of that locality miserable. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application to the Municipa...
Benaras Hall Vs. the Labour Court, Guntur and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP136; [1967(15)FLR314]
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur in Industrial Dispute No 24 of 1962.2. The said award was passed on a reference by the Government of Andhra Pradesh that an industrial dispute existed between the workman, Shri K.V. Ramaniah, represented by the Nellore District Shops and Establishments Employees' Union and the management of the Benaras Hall, Nellore, the employers. The petitioner herein is the management of the Benaras Hall, the employers. The workman, Shri K.V. Ramaniah, the second respondent in this Writ Petition, it is said, absented himself of his own accord and so, his services were terminated by the management on 12-12-1961. The said workman thereafter complained to the President of the Nellore District Shops and Establishments Employers' Union. The said complaint was signed by K.V. Ramaniah and four others, G.V. Subba Rao, K. Rajagopal, P. Ramamurthy and V. Venkata Krishn...
Guntur Ramalakshamamma and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967AP280
ORDER(1) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash G. P. Rt. No. 372 Public Works, dated 9th March 1964.(2) The relevant facts are that the Government, intending to acquire the land, T. S. No. 357 of an extent of 3,406 sq. feet, for construction of Telephone Exchange Office in Chirala town issued a notice in G. O. Rt. No. 372, Public Works, dated 9th March 1964 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquistion Act, 1894., Government also, acting under Section 17(4) of the Act, directed that in view of the urgency of the case, the provisions of Section 5A of the Act be dispensed with. It is to challenge this direction dispensing with Section 5Aof the Act that the present writ petition is filed.(3) The principal contention of Mr. E. Ayyapureddy, the learned counsel for petitioner is that under Section 17, the application of Section 5Acan be dispensed with only in a case where the land sought to be acquired is either a...
Sri Ramadas Motor Transport (Private) Limited Vs. the Authority Under ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP44; (1968)IILLJ500AP
ORDER1. These two writ petitions raise common questions of law. They can therefore be disposed of under a common judgment.2. These are petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Visakhapatnam given on 30th September 1963.3. The petitioner is carrying on the business of motor transport. It has several lorries and buses running not only in cities but also in mofussil areas and also in areas where some roads are covered by ghats. The 2nd respondent in each writ petition was appointed as driver by the petitioner on daily wages of Rs. 1-75 nP. On 16-8-1961, G. O. Ms. No. 1609 was issued under the Minimum Wages Act fixing the wages payable to the employees in the motor transport business. The said G. O. divides the drivers into three categories. Category I relates to the drivers of vehicles plying between towns, cities or villages; category 2 relates to the drivers of vehicles...
The Guntur District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. the State ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-1966
Reported in: [1967]20STC476(AP)
ORDERGopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Guntur, to forbear from enforcing the provisions of Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (6 of 1957). It arises in the following circumstances :The petitioner is the' Guntur District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., having its registered office at Guntur. The principal business of the society is the distribution of chemical fertilisers to various co-operative societies in that district.2. The petitioner had been paying the sales tax under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, and the rules framed thereunder, in respect of the sales conducted by him in favour of the various co-operative societies.3. While so, the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1963, was passed and received the assent of the Preside...
Samudrala Nagabhushanam Vs. Venkana Raghavayya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP70
Venkatesam, J.1. The only point for determination in this S.R. is, whether a revi-sion petition filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, XV of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is barred by limitation if not filed within 90 days from the date of the order as laid down by Role 41-A (2) of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). If that rule governs the case, the revision petition is barred by limitation and the petitioner should get the delay condoned on sufficient cause being shown. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the rule has no application to the case as it is governed by Section 22 of the Act, according to which the revision petition could be filed at any time.2. Considering the importance of the question raised, one of us (Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.) directed that the matter should be posted before a Bench. At our request, Sri G. Venkatarama Sastr...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »