Andhra Pradesh Court March 1977 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.
Bhagirathamma and anr. Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-1977
Reported in: AIR1978AP10
Alladi Kuppuswami, J.1. An extent of Ac. 38-4 guntas of land situate in Survey Nos. 5/14, 124, 128, 129 and 126 in Balanagar village was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act under a notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act published on 15-7-1964. There were three claimants for the compensation, respondent No. 2 herein and the two petitioners (being 1 to 3 respectively). There was no dispute that three of the items belonged to respondent No. 2, but there was a dispute inter se between the two sets of claimants in regard to Survey Nos. 128 and 129. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 1,000 per acre and also fixed the value for the compound -walls, wells, trees etc. As the claimants claimed compensation at a higher rate, they asked for a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and accordingly reference was made in O.P. No. 310 of 1965 on the file of the Second Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The Court awarded ...
Wines International Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC465(AP)
ORDERGangadhara Rao, J.1. The question for our consideration in these review petitions is whether the High Court can review its order under Section 22(7) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, because of a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court taking a contrary view.2. Under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act, Tax Revision Cases Nos. 40 and 41 of 1975 were filed by the two assessees in this court. On the ground that they were covered by the judgments of this court in (1) Central Wines, Hyderabad v. Deputy Commissioner (1976) 1 A.P.L.J. 71 and (2) Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. State of A.P. [1976] 37 S.T.C. 448 (T. R. C. Nos. 27 and 28 of 1974 dated 28th November, 1975), they were dismissed with costs by the then Chief Justice Obul Reddi and one of us (Mr. Justice Gangadhara Rao) on 4th February, 1976. On 25th October, 1976, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of this court in Central Wines, Hyderabad v. Deputy Commis...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-1977
Reported in: [1980]121ITR466(AP)
Madhusudan Rao, J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question referred for the decision of the High Court is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to deduct the sums of Rs. 1,06,333 and Rs. 2,55,103 as revenue expenditure for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, respectively ?'2. The assesseee is the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudem. It carries on business in coal mines. A large number of labourers to work as coal miners are employed by the assessee. Under the Coal Mines Labour Fund Act, 1947, Coal Mines Labour Housing Board (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Board') was constituted for the construction of low cost houses for persons employed in the coal mines industries. The Board framed a scheme and in pursuance of the scheme the assessee constructed 1,424 miners' quarters during the assessment years 1964-65 and 196...
The State of A.P. Vs. M.A. Rahim
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC173(AP)
Sambasiva Rao, Ag. C.J.1. A question of some consequence relating to the scope of Section 14(4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act arises for decision in this batch of tax revision cases.2. These cases are four in number. Out of them, T. R. C. Nos. 56 of 1976 and 1 of 1977 are of one assessee ; while T. R.C. No. 65 of 1976 and T. R. C. No. 5 of 1977 are of another assessee. The question is in respect of assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. Since there are two assessees and two assessments for two years, we are having on the whole four tax revision cases.3. The facts are not complicated and are very brief. Both the assessees trade in cloth and other articles. They filed A-1 (annual return) for these two assessment years showing turnover of less than Rs. 10,000 per year. At that time, turnovers of Rs. 10,000 and below were exempt from sales tax. The assessing authority accepted these returns and passed nil assessment. Sometime thereafter, information reached the officer that th...
Ramamohan Motor Service Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-1977
Reported in: [1979]120ITR434(AP)
Sambasiva Rao, Actg. C.J. 1. The following question of law was sent for our decision by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, at the instance of the assessee : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm is entitled to registration under the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1962-63 ' 2. The assessee is a firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated February 5, 1955. It had 5 partners consisting of father and four sons, the last of them being a minor. He was represented by his father and guardian, the first partner. While the four adult partners signed for themselves, the father, as natural guardian, signed for the minor partner. An application was made for registration under the Partnership Act on October 18, 1955. An objection was raised by the Registrar that in the deed, the minor was also made to share losses along with profits which is contrary to Section 30 of the Partnership Act. He, therefore, wanted a re...
Manohar Chowla Vs. Shair Ali
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1977AP239
ORDER1. The petitioner is a Landlord. The respondent is his tenant. The petitioner filed a petition for the eviction of the respondent before the Rent Controller, Nirmal, under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act. hereinafter called the Act. on the ground that he bona fide needs the premises for his personal occupation as well as for starting a business. It is not disputed that it is a non-residential building and it was let out to the respondent where he is doing some business. The respondent resisted the petition by contending that the petitioner was not the Landlord, his claim was not bona fide and since the premises was non-residential he cannot claim it partly for residential and partly for non-residential purposes. The Rent Controller allowed the petition holding that the petitioner was the Landlord, he bona fide needs the premises for starting the business as well as for his personal occupation and there was no prohibition in the Ac...
Shaik Meera Vs. the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1470
Raghuvir, J.Under Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, I. T. V. Anand Kumar, I. A. S., District Magistrate, Nizamabad order that Sri Shaik Meera s/o Sri Shaik Salar R/o Dichpalli who has been ordered to be detained under Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 shall be detained in the Central Jail, Hyderabad. He shall be treated as Class 'C' Detenu.2. The reasons in resisting the Writ Petition urge though the order ex facie does not disclose reasons yet the order is not void as the District Magistrate has power to pass such an order. In answer to the plea that no grounds are stated even before us in their counter it is contended the proclamation of the President under Article 352 of the Constitution of India in 1971 in June, 1975, and the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, Act 26 of 1971 enable them to be laconic. The respondents it is argued are not obliged in law to state reasons and reliance is plac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›