Andhra Pradesh Court June 1981 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.
Feno Plast Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1981
Reported in: 1984(17)ELT97(AP)
1. Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers the Central Government, if it is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, to exempt generally either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, goods of any specified description from the whole or any part of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the Act. In exercise of this power, the Central Government issued notification No. 66/79 dated 15th March, 1979 which is to the following effect :- 'In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, No. 145-Customs, dated the 27th July, 1978, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts polyvinyl chloride resins, falling within Chapter 39 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 ...
Nagi Reddy Vs. B. Sayanna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP48
Alladi Kuppuswami, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement of Raghuvir, J. allowing writ Petition No. 4046 of 1979 filed by the first respondent herein and directing the Commissioner of Land Revenue to consider the Suitability of the Writ Petitioner along with other applicants for the post of Karnam of Chabolu village.2. The Writ petition was filed with the following allegations. The Karnam of Chabolu village died on 30 th Dec. 1976 with the result the post fell vacant. On 20th Jan. 1977, the Tahsildar, Nandyal issued notice under R. 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Village Offices Service Rules calling for applications for the post. At the interview, however, only seven were present. The Revenue Divisional Officer considered that among the candidates, the first respondent herein was suitable for appointment and appointed him. The first respondent, however, did not have the requisite educational qualification prescribed under R. 10 as he did not pass the 8th class. The Sub-Collec...
Sarvaraya Sugars Ltd. and ors. Vs. Andhra Pradesh Civil Supplies Corpo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1981AP402
Madhava Reddy, J.1. These appeals are by the contesting respondents in the two writ petitions W. P. Nos-1285 and 1743 of 1980, who are producers of sugar within the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., which is a Company registered under the Companies Act, sought a writ of mandamus in the above two writ petitions against the appellants herein for an appropriate direction to supply sugar at the rate fixed by the Union of India, first respondent therein, under the Sugar Price Fixation (Production Years 1978-79 and 1979-80) Orders dated 17-12-1979 issued under the provisions of Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order, 1979. By that order the purchasers of sugar were directed to sell levy-free sugar to the State Government or its nominee at the price mentioned therein. Similar orders, issued for production years 1974-75 and 1975-76, were challenged by several producers of sugar in various High Courts and the petitioner and some others in the High Cou...
A. Mallayya Vs. Licensing Officer (R.T.O.), Karimnagar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1981AP383
ORDERMadhava Reddy, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the demand notice No. 5476/ A4/77 dt. 22-2-1978 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Karimnagar, in respect of vehicle No. ADB 3304 forplying it on an unauthorised route which attracts the higher rate of tax at Rs. 135/- per seat per quarter. A sum of Rs. 2,601/- was demanded under the impugned notice.2. The petitioner's vehicle ADB 3304, which was permitted to ply as a stage carriage on route Karimnagar to Jagtial viz., Anthergaon, Fotharam, Ramannapet, Mallial, Thakkallapalli, Narasingapur, Kachapur, Thurkalamaddikunta, was found, on being checked by the Regional Transport Officer, Karimnagar, at 47/4 K. Ms. on Karimnagar -- Jagtial road, to be proceeding from Jagtial to Mallial. The petitioner was asked to show cause why an amount of Rupees 2,601/- should not be collected from him towards the difference of tax for plying the vehicle on an unauthorised route. In his representation...
Kavaluri Sidda Reddy Vs. Bathala Rangaswamy Naidu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1543
ORDER1. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No. 24/1980 of Kodur Police Station in Cuddapah District. The 1st respondent filed a complaint under Section 409 read with Section 34 and 109 I.P.C., against the petitioner and another alleging that the petitioner had purchased the lorry bearing number APD 5196 under the purchase with Merchantile Credit Corporation, Madras, that the petitioner sold the lorry to one Mallikarjuna Chetty and delivered possession to him on 20th June, 1978 that subsequently Mallikarjuna Chetty sold the lorry to the 1st respondent on 27th January, 1979 and delivered possession of the Lorry along with the Registration Certificate Book and permits. It was alleged that the 2nd accused was a contractor in Andhra Pradesh Mining Corporation, and for transporting the goods the took the vehicle on lease from the 1st respondent and the lorry was entrusted to the 2nd accused along with Registration Certificate Book and permits on 12th April, 1979. It is further stated...
K. Lakshmaiah Vs. Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, Madras
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-11-1981
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ369AP
Raghuvir, J. 1. K. Lakshmaiah joined the Central Storage (Food Department) in August, 1954 as a watchman and was promoted in 1959 as tally clerk. In 1965 the Central Storage (Food Department) got merged in the Food Corporation of India (the Corporation). Tally Clerk in the Corporation was designated as Assistant, Grade III (Depot). In 1973, Laxmaiah was selected and promoted to the post of Assistant, Grade II (Depot). While working he is removed from service on March, 31, 1978. The order of removal was confirmed by the Appellant Authority on September, 2, 1978. The order of 'removal' and confirmation are challenged by Lakshmaiah (the employee) in the writ petition lodged on November, 1, 1978. 2. The removal order was passed after an inquiry in disciplinary proceedings. The inquiry related to an incident at Khammam that occurred on October 24, 1975 pertaining to a release order 101315 of 200 quintals of coarse rice. The employee was to have delivered rice of 200 quintals to the Zonal En...
Syed QamanuddIn Ahmed Vs. the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisiti ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1981AP371
Alladi Kuppuswami, C.J.1. This writ appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment of Jeevan Reddy, J., dated 31-12-1980. An objection was taken by the office that the appeal is barred by limitation, as there has been a delay of 12 days in filing the writ appeal. Sri V. B. Sahgal, learned counsel for the appellant, however, contendsthat there has been no delay in preferring the appeal.2. The judgment was delivered on 31-12-1980, the last day before the Sankranti vacation, which commenced on 1-1-1981 and lasted till 16-1-1981. The appellant filed a copy application on 17-1-1981 and filed the appeal on 26-2-1981. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the period from 1-1-1981 to 16-1-1981 when the High Court was closed for Sankranti vacation has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation, in which case the appeal will be in time. It is conceded that the appeal would be in time if the above period is excluded. But the objection raised by the office is that this p...
Pulikutla Papanna and ors. Vs. Pulikuntla Gangulamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1982AP480
ORDER1. Respondents 1 to 3 in I. A. 670 of 1979 and the proposed defendants 3 to 5, are the petitioners in this revision petition. This revision petition is filed as against the order adding defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. Originally, these defendants were sought to be impleded as legal representatives of defendant No. 2 in the suit under O. XXII, R. 4 of the code of Civil procedure. But as steps for bringing. On record the legal representatives were not pursued within the stipulated time they could not be brought on record as legal representatives of defendant No. 2, and as such, the suit abated as against them. Thereafter a petition under O. 1. R. 10 of the Civil P.C. has been filed to add them as they are the alienees pendente lite from the second defendant in the suit. The court below held that there is no provision precluding the plaintiff from bringing the proposed persons on record under O.I, R. 10 of the Civil P.c. being the alienees or persons who have come into possession of t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›