Andhra Pradesh Court December 1978 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.
Jhaveri Brothers, Jewellers Represented by Its Partner Himmathmal Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-1978
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT469(AP)
ORDERMadhava Reddy, J.1. These two writ petitions by a firm carrying on the business of purchase and sale of jewellery at Abid Road, Hyderabad call in question the order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad confirmed on appeal by the Gold Control Administrator and on revision by the Government of India.2. I may first state the facts relating to writ petition No. 811/78 which raised two main questions of which one is common to this and the other writ petition No. 733/78.3. On 26-11-66 nine insured parcels sent from Bombay by M/s. Chandu-lal Kushalchand were taken delivery of by the petitioner in the presence of the officials of the Customs and Central Excise Department. They were immediately opened and these parcels were found to contain bangles, kadas, kangan, gokuru and rings, in all 66 items all of gold weighing 4577.450 gms. The said officials held a panchanama, put the articles in a box and sealed the same. That panchanama was signed by Sarvasri Vinayachand Jai...
Godavari Bai Rathi and anr. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-1978
Reported in: AIR1980AP25
ORDER1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order No. 840/2/3/76 dated 19-10-1976 0f the Municipal corporation of Hyderabad and the order in memorandum no. 5865/ k2/ 76-3- MA dated 26-5-1978 of the government of Andhra Pradesh and quashing the same and to direct the 1st respondent to sanction the plan submitted by the petitioners on 25-9-1976 for construction of second floor. 2. The relevant facts are as follows: The petitioners are the owners of a building bearing Municipal No. 3-2- 840 in Kachiguda, Hyderabad. The petitioners applied on 7-2-1964 to the commissioner of the 2nd respondent corporation for permission to raise certain constructions. As no orders were communicated, the petitioner commenced construction on 1-4- 1964. When the construction was nearing completion, the 1st respondent issued a noticed calling upon the petitioner to demolish the construction. The petitioner to demolish the construction. The petitio...
In Re: Puritipatti Jega Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-1978
Reported in: AIR1979AP146
A. Sambasiva Rao, C.J.1. While referring these matters to Bench or three Judges the' Division Bench consisting of Obul Reddi, C. J. and Gangadhara Rao.J. posed the two following questions;(I) Whether it would be open to party to invoke the provisions of S. 482, Cr. P C. 1973, When he seeks to file a second revision in the High Court under S. 397(3) ? (2) Whether sub-section (3) of S. 397 takes away the jurisdiction of this Court (High Court) to suo motu exercise its revisional jurisdiction in case where the Sessions Judge had already exercised his revisional jurisdiction under sub-sec. (3) on an application made to him under that sub-section?'2. Earlier Muktadar. J. referred these cases to a Division Bench in view of the conflicting decisions on these aspects f this Court and other High Courts. The Division Bench thought that the two question are very important and should be decided by a Full Bench.3. Apart from the different view points expressed on these questions by learned single J...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›