Andhra Pradesh Court January 1986 Judgments
Amba Bhavani and ors. Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: [1986]63STC40(AP)
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. All these writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment as common questions arise for consideration in all of them. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are either the persons engaged in the business of running a hotel, restaurant or eating house or the hotels, restaurants or eating house themselves as the case may be. The relief sought for in all these writ petitions is for a declaration that section 6 of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982, is unconstitutional and sections 6 and 38 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (No. 18 of 1985) are ultra vires articles 19(1)(g) and 21 and violative of articles 141, 265 and 300-A and for a direction to the respondents not to levy or collect sales tax from the petitioners for the period prior to 10th April, 1985. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions are not very much in dispute. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. :...
Tag this Judgment!D. Murali Krishna Public School, Champapet Vs. Regional Joint Director ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1986AP204
ORDER1. The Shashikanth Educational Society, a registered Society, was started by Sri. S. Tulasidas, a Scheduled Caste young Advocate and D. Muralikrishna Public School was established by the said society at Champapet, outskirts of the city, in Rangareddy District and the wife of Sri. S. Tulasidas, Smt. S. Devaki is the Secretary and Correspondent of the said school. It was started in the year 1982 for imparting education with English Medium to the children belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, for short 'Dalits', living in Champaper village. They are either rickshaw pullers or daily wage earners. The petitioner-Institution claims to be having 122 children and in the year 1983-84 by proceedings of the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad, dated Mar. 19, recognition was granted for Classes I and II. In fact, the institution is running the school at present with Classes I to IV and L. KG and U. KG. The petitioner made a request for the recognition of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra and Mahindra Limited and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: [1986]63STC274(AP)
P. Kodandaramayya, J.1. The first petitioner in the above writ petition is a public limited company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1913, having its registered office at Bombay. It is a manufacture of light commercial vehicles. The second petitioner is the shareholder of the first petitioner-company. 2. In this writ petition, two notifications issued by the first respondent, State of Andhra Pradesh, under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, granting a concession of levy of lesser rate of tax under those Acts payable by the second respondent-company are challenged. 3. It is averred in the affidavit that in the motor vehicles market, light commercial vehicles form a distinct class being vehicles of a load carrying a capacity of three metic tonnes and several manufacturers in India including the first petitioner-company and the second respondent-company manufacture these vehicles and compete with each order. The second respondent-c...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Bombay and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Prades ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1986AP332
P. Kodandarmayya, J. 1. The 1st petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under India Companies Act, 1913 having its registered office at Bombay. It manufactures ight commercial vehicles. The 2nd petitioenr is the shareholder of the 1st Petitieonr company. The challenge of these petitioners of the notification sisued under S. 9(1) of the A. P. General Sales-Tax Act granting concession inn the rate of tax payagle under the siad Act by the 2nd respondent was upheld by us in our judgment delivered to day and we staed fully the background of this challenge. Now the order in questin was issued by the first respondent herein the Government of Andhra Pradesh by its Industries & Commerce Department directing all Govenmenr Deparments and locl bodies to buy their requirement of light Commercal vehicles only from the wnd respondent. The 2nd reespondent company was formed and promoted by hyderabad Allwyn Limited whihc is an undertaking of the Andhra Pradesh State Goverment. The second re...
Tag this Judgment!Lukraj and ors. Vs. Kishanlal and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: AIR1987AP22
Sriramulu, J.1. O.S. No. 59 of 1968 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, out of which this Civil Revision Petition arises was filed for partition of Plaint B Schedule properties claiming 1/6th share therein and also claiming 1/6th share in the compensation amount with regard to certain lands which were acquired by the Government and also for a declaration that the registration of some of the suit lands as endowed properties in the Register of Endowments by defendant 13, the Director of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff pleaded that late Raja Raghunatharam was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 11. He owned considerable properties movable and immovable including plaint B Schedule lands comprised of crown grants, Atiyat, etc. After his death the said crown grants were re-granted to his heirs and ultimately the succession was sanctioned by the competent authority in f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›