Andhra Pradesh Court March 1981 Judgments
T. Kondala Rao Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1981AP220
Alladi Kuppuswami, C.J.1. The appellant filed writ petition No. 7717 of 1979 questioning the grant of a licence for the construction of a temporary cinema to the third respondent. The first contention that was raised was that there are six permanent and six temporary theatres within a radius of 8 kilometres from Machavaram village of which Ambajipeta in which the cinema is to be located is a hamlet, and therefore, the grant of licence to the third respondent for a temporary theatre is contrary of the rules.2. Under Rule 7 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cinema (Resulation) Rules, 1970. 'subject to Sub-rule (5) of this rule, the number of cinema buildings allowed to function in any place on the basis of the population of such place shall be as specified below :(a) There shall be no restriction on the basis of pupulation to the grant of licences (i) to permanent cinemas; and (ii) to temporary cinemas if there is no permanent cinema; (b) ..... (c) Where the population is 20,000 and less, only o...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Tobacco Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: 1984(16)ELT216(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Guntur, dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit on a preliminary ground, namely, that it is barred by res judicata. The relevant facts are that the plaintiff-appellant is a dealer in un-manufactured tobacco scrap. Certain proceedings were taken against him under the Central Excise Act by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Guntur, and after hearing the plaintiff, he passed an order dated 25-7-1971 holding that the plaintiff is guilty of violation of several provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. On that account, he made a demand in a sum of Rs. 1,94,451.64 Ps., towards the Excise duty. He imposed a small fine as well. The plaintiff preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Madras. It appears that the tobacco concerned was also confiscated. The order of the Assistant Collector as confirmed by the Appellate Collector was chal...
Tag this Judgment!V. Vijaya Prasada Rao Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderaba ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1981AP299
Kuppuswami, C.J. 1. The appellant, the 3rd respondent and others applied for the grant of a pucca stage carriage permit on the fair, weather route Nandanavanam to Sanam-pudi Via Singarayakonda and Kanumalla. The appellant was applicant No. 5 and the 3rd respondent was applicant No. 2 before the Regional Transport Authority. The Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the appellant, who was applicant No. 5 before him, as he secured 3 marks which was the highest among all me applicants. Applicant No. 2, who was awarded 2 marks, preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. He contended that he should have been given 2 more marks on the basis of sector qualification. It was contended before the Tribunal by the respondents that he was not entitled to any marks on the above ground, firstry because he was theholder of a temporary permit and secondly because he was exclusively running a stage carriage on the route applied for or on a sector covering the entire rout...
Tag this Judgment!T. Gattaiah and 86 ors. Vs. Commissioner of Labour and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-1981
Reported in: [1981(43)FLR202]; (1981)IILLJ54AP
1. This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by eighty-seven workmen of I.D.L. Chemicals Limited, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the company complaining against their lay-off and retrenchment by the said company. These petitioners had been laid-off on 8th February, 1980, and they were later retrenched on 7th April, 1980. The petitioners claim that their lay-off as well as retrenchment was brought about by the said company contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976 (XXXII of 1976). It is on that basis that they pray this Court should issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or nay other appropriate writ or direction directing Commissioner of Labour, the first respondent herein to hold that their lay-off and retrenchment were in violation of the statutory provisions and are, therefore, null and void and to direct the said company to continue them in service with back wag...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›