Andhra Pradesh Court September 1984 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.
O. Sudhakar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1986AP188
Rama Rao, J.1. This petition is for issuance of a writ to quash the publication of the results of the meeting of the Municipal Councillor. Nalgonda held on 18-8-1984. The assential a averments in the affidavit in support of the writ petition may be stated.2. The petitioner was unanimously elected as the Chairman of the Municipality of Nalgonda in July, 1983. On 31-7-1984 some of the councillors sent a written notice of intention to move no-confidence motion in the Chairman and pursuant to the said requisition the meeting was fixed on 18-8-1984. When the move for no-confidence motion was initiated two of the councillors viz. Mirza Ahmed Baig and Oruganti Ramulu were under detention under the National Security Act. In the meeting the petitioner filed an objection that the said two councillors could not be permitted to vote in the meeting. Thereupon the petitioner was informed by the Revenue divisional officer who was presiding over the meeting that this Court permitted the said two counc...
Mopeds India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Nellore Div ... Overruled
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: 1985(4)ECC170; 1984(18)ELT249(AP)
Sardar Ali Khan, J.1. Messrs Mopeds India Limited, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi Who are the manufacturers of two-wheeler popularly known as Mopeds, is the petitioner herein. The writ hass been filed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order in C.NO. V/34/17/449/75-B3 in order No. 385/79 dated 25-9-1979 and the consequential demand in D.2 No. 052609 dated 23-10-1979 for sum of Rs. 6,96,177.09 p. towards the differential duty payable by the petitioner company and for a declaration that the approval accorded to excisable goods cleared under Tariff Item No. 34, 34-A and 68 on the price lists submitted on and after 26-5-1979 on which the respondent loaded the commission unilaterally is illegal and ultra vires the authority of the respondent. It is further claimed that the respondent may be directed to redetermine the assessable value of the price lists submittedd by the petitioner as also the earlier approved price lists commencing from 1-10-1975 on the basis of the manufacturi...
Syed IkramuddIn Vs. Syed Mahamed Ali
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1986AP267
ORDER1. The petitioner is the second defendant. The suit was laid for partition of the matruka property i.e. house bearing No. 3-5-855, situated at Hyderguda, Hyderabad. A preliminary decree was passed and a Commissioner was appointed to effect partition by metes and bounds and the enquiry is in progress. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application to include in the schedule the house bearing No.3-5-855 situated at Hyderguda and also the appurtenant land of 12,000 Sq. Yards. According to the petitioner, the property belongs to his mother Sogra Begum, and she died intestate. Therefore, it formed part of the matruka property. Though he raised the same contention in the written statement, it was not decided. Since it is matruka property it is liable to be included as one of the items in the schedule and is liable to be partitioned. In the first instance, he made an application for amendment of the schedule under Order IV, Rule 17,CPC. That application was dismissed and when revisio...
Pratap Steel Rolling Mills Vs. the Revenue Division Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1985AP159
ORDER1. Careless printing of a notification issued under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part-I Extraordinary bearingNo.359 dated 10th July, 1984, has given rise to a controversy arising for consideration in this Writ Petition. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to restrain the 1st respondent herein from enforcing the notices in Form No.6 and 7 dated 26-7-84 and Form No.10 dated 10-9-1984 as illegal, void and inoperative. According to the petitioner, the lands notified for acquisition under S. 6 of the L.A. Act published in the A.p.Gazette bearing No.359 dated 10th July , 1984 are not lands belonging to him. It may be relevant to notice a few facts, initially notifications under Section 4(1) and Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dt. 25-6-1982 were published together in the A.P. Gazette Extraordinary dt. 13-7-1982 proposing to acquire a portion of the land belonging to the petitioner in S. Nos. 341 and 343 admeasuring Ac.0.14 guntas. Enquiry under Se...
Kannan Narayanan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1984
Reported in: AIR1985AP149
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash R.7 of the Andhra pradesh Regulation of Admission of Students into Medical Colleges Govt. Dental College Rules, 1983 (for short ''he Admission Rules'' as unconstitutional and void being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and also to quash the Memorandum No. BST/ENT/84 dated 19-7-1984 issued by the Principal, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad informing the petitioner that he is not eligible to sit for M.B.B.S. Entrance Examination for the year 1984-85, as he does not belong to Andhra Pradesh. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, however, confined the objections only to the validity of R.7 (9) of the Admission Rules and did not contend that the provisions contained in R.7 other than in sub-rule (9) were unconstitutional. It is, therefore, necessary to examine how far R.7 (9) of the Admission Rules is violative of Art. 14 of he Constitution, as contended by the petitioner. In order to appr...
Babumiyan and Vs. K. Seethayamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1985AP135
Punnayya, J.1. The respondents herein filed I.A.No.54 of 1983 for condonation of delay in filing O.P.No. 1 of 1983 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad under S.110A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act r/w Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the I.A.No.54 of 1983 on payment of costs of Rs.100/- to allow each respondent. Aggrieved with the order allowing the interlocutory application the petitioner (respondents 1 and 2) preferred CMASR No. 62425 of 1983 in this Court.2. The office took an objection that the appeal does not lie and the office asked the counsel for the appellants to convert the CMA into CRP. For taking this objection and for urging the counsel to convert the CMA into revision the office relied upon the decision of a Bench of this Court in CMA No.612 of 1977 dated 3-4-1978.3. The said CMA was directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor condoning the delay in filing the claim...
Godavari Plywood Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: 1985(4)ECC329; 1984(18)ELT732(AP)
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. The petitioners is seeking to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to refund Rs. 96,331- 47Ps., claiming that it was an illegal collection. THe petitioneris a manufacture ofplywoodand allied products including flush doors. Their products were assesseed to excise duty. Flush doors were taxed under Item 16-B of Schedule I of the Central Excises and Salt Act(1 to 1944), for short, 'the Act' at 24%+5% on basic excise duty as special excise duty. The petitioner paid the same without any demur for the period from January 18, 1978 to October 27, 1980. Messrs Woodcrafts Products, Delhi, when questioned the levy under the said Tariff Item 16-B, the Delhi High Court by judgment dated March 17, 1980 held that the goods were exigible to tax under resduary Item No. 68, ranging from 5% to 8%. It was confirmed by the Supreme Court on refusing special leave. The first respondent, in excise of the power conferred under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for sh...
Muppavarapu Siva Ramakrishnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: AIR1985AP376
Chennakesava Reddy, Ag. C.J. 1. The true limit of the power of the State Government to exempt from the ceiling limit any vacant land under S. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as could be gathered from the objects of the Act and the extent of the authority of the Central Government to issue directions to the State Government for the implementation of the Act under Arts. 256 and 257 of the Constitution read with S. 36 of the Act, are the questions of general interest and considerable importance that are evoked in this batch of writ petitions.2. The Act is a Central enactment and provides for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations. The reason for the enactment s the necessity to exercise social control over the scarce resource of urban land due to the growth of population increasing urbanisation. The dominant object sought to be achieved by the Act is to prevent concentration of urban land in the han...
Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Urban Development Authorit ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: AIR1985AP118
Jagannadha Rao, J.1. A large extent of Ac. 17 and 24, 394 Sq. feet of land in T.S. No. 363/B in Block 20 of Waltair Ward was acquired for a development scheme in pursuance of a resolution by the Chairman, Town Planning Trust. A notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette of 21-9-1967. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award bearing No. 7/72 dated 26-6-1972 fixing the market rate at Rs.4.04 per square yard. The claimants then applied for a reference under S. 18 of the L.A. Act. The reference was numbered as O.P. No. 117/1973 and after notice the claimants filed various claim statements. These persons were shown as claimants Nos. 1 to 22 in the O.P.2. Before the learned Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam to claimants examined P.Ws. 1 to 8 and marked Ex. S.A-1 to A-24 on their side. On the other hand, the Government examined R.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. B-1 to B-27. 3. On a consideration of the above evidence, the learned Subordinate judge enhanc...
Katya Co-operative Building Society Limited and ors. Vs. Government of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: AIR1985AP242
P. Chennakesava Reddy, Ag.C.J.1. The true limit of the power of the State Government to exempt from the ceiling limit any vacant land under S. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as could be gathered from the objects of the Act and the extent of the authority of the Central Government to issue directions to the State Government for the implementation of the Act under Arts. 256 and 257 of the Constitution read with S. 36 of the Act, are the questions of general interest and considerable importance that are evoked in this batch of writ petitions. 2. The Act is a Central enactment and provides for the imposition of ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations. The reason for the enactment is the necessity to exercise social control over the scarce resource of urban land due to the growth of population and increasing urbanisation. The dominant object sought to be achieved by the Act is to prevent concentration of urban land in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »