Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1991]81STC431(AP)
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. The common question of law that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is whether the agarbathies fall under the category of perfumes and is liable to sales tax under item 36 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). 2. All these petitioners carry on business in agarbathies and other goods and are registered dealers. They have been paying sales tax on sales of agarbathies as general goods taxable at every point of sale at 4 per cent up to July 8, 1983 and 5 per cent from July 8, 1983. While so, by the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Amendment Act 18 of 1985, item 36 of the First Schedule to the Act has been amended as follows : 'Cosmetics and toilet preparations, including scents, perfumes, face-powders, talcum powders, hair-tonics, hair-oils, hair lotion, fact creams and snows, pomades, depilatories, tooth-powder, tooth-paste and tooth brushes.'3. Before this amend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(2)ALT184
ORDERSardar Ali Khan, J.1. The petitioner joined the service of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (T.T.D.) in the year, 1960 as a Shroff. He was promoted as a Lower Division Clerk in 1964 and as an Upper Division Clerk with effect from 10-4-1970 and further promoted to the post of Superintendent with effect from 3-4-1980. In the year 1986 when he was working as the Superintendent in Vykuntam Complex, a complaint was filed against him alleging that he collected a sum of Rs. 875/- without issuing the tickets. On the report of the Vigilance Guard Officer of T.T.D. he was placed under suspension pending enquiry and framing of charges. Later on, a charge memo was issued by the Executive Officer, T.T.D. to which he was asked to submit his explanation within seven days. He gave his explanation on 11-9-1986 and also refunded the amount of Rs. 350/- which was received by him. A provisional conclusion order dated 18-4-1987 was issued to the petitioner to which he offered his explanation on 29-4-19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1641
ORDER(1) The petitioner filed on July 17, 1989, this Contempt Case against the respondent. The office has raised the objection thus : 'It may be stated as how this contempt case is said to be filed in time.' (2) It is represented by the learned counsel that against the order of termination of the petitioner from service on October 17, 1981, Writ Petition No. 8692/81 was filed. By judgment dated January 19, 1985 the writ petition was allowed and the order of termination was quashed. Against that, Writ Appeal No. 361/85 was filed and by order dated November 20, 1987, the writ appeal was dismissed without much discussion, though after hearing both sides. The respondent carried the matter to Supreme Court in S.L.P No. 12714 of 1988 and by order dated February 20, 1989, the leave petition was dismissed. After dismissal of the appeal by the Division Bench, the petitioner has submitted a representation on June 24, 1988, followed by further representations dated August 12, 1988 and October 5, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1990CriLJ762
ORDER1. This is a petition filed under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the charges framed against the petitioners-accused. 2. The complaint in these quash proceedings is that the Magistrate, before whom the 1st respondent complainant filed the complaint against the petitioners, has without recording any evidence - though not the entire evidence - framed charges against the petitioners and others under different heads, thereby denying them opportunity of being considered for discharge in terms of S. 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the charges are liable to be quashed. 3. To appreciate the above submission of the learned counsel, Shri Veerabhadra Rao, it is necessary to advert to certain provisions in the Code that have bearing on the present matter. Whenever a complaint is presented before a Magistrate, S. 220, Cr.P.C. obligates the Magistrate to examine the complainant on oath beside the witnesses, if any. After such an examination of the complainant and the witnesses, if ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1995)IIILLJ334AP
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1.In all these cases, application of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work' and the cognate principle 'no senior should get salary less than his junior' falls for consideration. They are therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The Respondent in W.A. No. 1090/87 is the petitioner in Review W.A.M.P. No. 1869/88. When this writ appeal came up before us, it was contended by the respondents herein (appellants in the writ appeal) that the employees of Agricultural University who were juniors to the petitioners were being paid higher salary than the appellants and that question was covered by a judgment of a Bench of this Court in State of A.P. v. B.V.S. Sai Prasad and Ors. 1987(1) ALT 225, and that following that judgment many writ petitions including that filed by their juniors were allowed and therefore the pay of the appellants should also be fixed on par with their juniors. It was further stated by the learned counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1990CriLJ2743
Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. In all these three cases the scope of some of the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, hereafter called TADA, and the procedure to be followed by the Courts designated under the said Act, fall for consideration. For the sake of convenience, we shall first State the facts in each case and then examine common submissions made by the learned counsel. 2. Cr. P. No. 1434 of 1989 : Crime No. 44 of 1989 was registered in Lingala Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and 3(2) of TADA. The Inspector of Police, Pulivendala, against five accused. The learned Magistrate took it on file as P.R.C. No. 5 of 1989 and committed the case to the Court of Session on 7-8-1989. Pending the trial of the said Sessions Case, bail applications were filed on behalf of some of the accused and A. 4 and A. 5 were released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, before whom the sessions case arising ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1990CriLJ2631; 1990LC228(AP)
ORDER1. This order will dispose of W.P. Nos. 10598 and 10603 of 1989. The first Writ Petition is filed on behalf of the detenu, Maniklal, and the second is filed on behalf of the detenu, Govindram Agarwal. 2. The orders of detention against both the detenus were passed separately on 25-5-1989. The facts of the case need not be mentioned in detail. Suffice it to say that certain contraband gold and some jewellery were recovered from a box in the premises of Ramgopal Goel, which was alleged to have been secreted therein by the detenu, Govindram Agarwal. The key for the box was found in the premises of Govindram Agarwal and thereupon, the gold and jewellery lying in the box were seized on 29-11-1988. At the time of seizure neither the detenu, Govindram Agarwal, nor the detenu Maniklal was available. So far as Govindram Agarwal is concerned, he is detained because of the recovery of the gold from a box which he kept in the premises of Ramgopal Goel. Maniklal is detained because Govindram A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1990CriLJ920; II(1990)DMC349
ORDER1. This is a petition filed under S. 482, Criminal P.C., to quash the order dated 13-11-1987 made in Criminal Revision Petition No. 3 of 1983 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. 2. The 1st petitioner here in is the wife of the 1st respondent while the 2nd petitioner is her daughter through the 1st respondent. In the year 1980 the petitioners filed a maintenance petition against the 1st respondent before the Magistrate at Medak. The learned Magistrate granted Rs. 150/- per months to the wife and Rs. 75/- to the daughter. The petitioner having been aggrieved of the quantum of the maintenance awarded sought for its enhancement by filing a revision under S. 397, Cr.P.C. before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy. Meanwhile the 1st respondent husband moved this Court under S. 397, Cr.P.C. challenging the very award of maintenance in Criminal Revision Petition No. 36 of 1985. This Court after hearing both sides dismissed the said revision by order dated 22n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1990)89CTR(AP)43; [1990]182ITR242(AP)
Seetharam Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner who was a legal practitioner and was later elevated as a judge of this court in November, 1983 (since recently retired), impugns the validity of the note dated March 10, 1988, issued by the Income-tax Officer concerned under section 148 of the Income-tax Act proposing to reassess certain income on the ground that it has escaped assessment for the assessment year 1983-84. 2. Format : The assessee-petitioner returned a gross income of Rs. 2,57,571 for the assessment year 1983-84 and after claiming statutory deductions, the net income returned was Rs. 2,40,245 and on due assessment, requisite tax was paid. A notice dated March 10, 1988 was, however, issued by the Income-tax Officer, salary Circle, under section 148 of the Income-tax (for short 'the Act') proposing to reassess the income for the said assessment year, requiring him to file a return as he had reason to believe that certain income chargeable to tax for the said year has escaped assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(6)ALD618; 1999(6)ALT87; (2000)ILLJ655AP
ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J 1. This writ petition has been filed by the Management of M/s. Nutrine Confectionery Company Limited, Chittoor challenging the validity of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The facts in brief are that the third respondent is a workman in the petitioner-company. A charge-sheet was issued to him on the allegation that he committed serious acts of misconduct. An inquiry was conducted and on the basis of the inquiry report he was dismissed from service on 8-11-1982. The third respondent along with the other workmen, who were also dismissed on the ground of misconduct, raised industrial dispute in the year 1983 before the Conciliation Officer under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, for short 'the Act', questioning the dismissal order. Thereafter, the Government rejected the reference by an order dated 27-1-1984 on the ground that the dispute does not merit for reference and thus declined to make any reference. The third respondent along w...
Tag this Judgment!