Andhra Pradesh Court September 1992 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.
Syed Rasool and Sons and ors. Vs. Aildas and Company and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT259; 1993(1)ALT(Cri)237; [1993]78CompCas738(AP); 1992CriLJ4048
G. Radhakrishna Rao, J. 1. These two Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing C.C. No. 143 of 1992, on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, and C.C. No. 481 of 1991, on the file of the II Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Tirupathi. 2. The accused in C.C. No. 143 of 1992, on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, are the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 689 of 1992 while the accused in C.C. No. 481 of 1991, on the file of the II Additional Musif-Magistrate, Tirupathi, is the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 967 of 1992. Respondent No. 1 in both the Criminal Petitions are the complainants in C.C. No. 143 of 1992 and C.C. No. 481 of 1991, respectively. 3. These petitions have come up for hearing before this Bench on a reference made by our learned brother. Iyyapu Panduranga Rao, J. in Criminal Petition No. 967 of 1992 and by one of us (i.e., G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.) in Criminal Petitioner No. 689...
G. Venkatakrishnaiah and Brothers and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1992
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC23
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. This T.R.C. is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated July 24, 1985, in Tribunal Appeal No. 246/1980 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner is the assessee. For the assessment year 1974-75, in the assessment proceedings, the petitioner claimed exemption of turnover relating to tamarind seed dhal in a sum of Rs. 1,66,268. The petitioner contended that the tamarind had already suffered tax at the purchase point. He also contended that the tamarind seed dhal is obtained by roasting the same. This is for the purpose of preserving from decay and making it marketable. The Commercial Tax Officer took the view that tamarind seed and tamarind seed dhal are two different commodities and accordingly levied tax on the said turnover at the rate of 4 per cent under Section 5(1) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner carried the matter before the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Kurnool. Relying upon the order...
The K.C.P. Limited (Ramakrishna Cements) Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: [1993]88STC374(AP)
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. These eight tax revision cases filed by the assessees pertaining to the assessment years 1975-76 to 1978-79 both under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the APGST Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CST Act') raise a common question whether the supplies of cement made to the K.C.P. Sugar Factory at Vuyyur (A.P. State) and K.C.P. Engineering Works, Madras, are 'sales'. The disputed turnovers are as follows :Sl. No.Assessment yearDisputed turnover11975-76 (APGST)Rs. 3, 89,42221976-77 (APGST)Rs. 4,39,26031977-78 (APGST)Rs. 7,15,21941978-79 (APGST)Rs. 3,81,49151975-76 (CST)Rs. 1,14,23661976-77 (CST)Rs. 1,65,68571977-78 (CST)Rs. 1,09,56281978-79 (CST)Rs. 9,0682. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is a division of the K.C.P. Limited, which is a public limited company having its registered office at Madras. The said company has at least three divisions or units, i.e., (i) K.C.P. Engine...
Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. Heh the Nizam Viii of Hyde ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: AIR1993AP76
ORDERV. Sivaraman Nair, J.1. This Writ Appeal arises from the interim order passed by our learned brother Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J., in W.P. No. 17955/91 in W.P. No/4513/1991. By his order dated 30-10-1991, the learned single Judge directed stay of all further proceedings pursuant to G.O. Ms. No. 957 Revenue (UC.I) Depart-ruent, dated 25th October, 1991. Against the interim order the State has appealed. On its admission on 8-11-1991, the Division Bench directed that the Writ Appeal be posted along with Writ Petition No. 4513/1991. Hence both the matters are before us. In view of the fact that we are hearing the Writ Petition, it is not necessary for us to consider the Writ Appeal separately.2. The Writ Petition is filed on behalf of M.JE.H. the Nizam-VIII, represented by the General Power of Attorney, to call for and quash Government Memo No. 580/ U.C.II(2) / 83-87, Revenue (UC.II) Department, dt. 16-3-1991. Nassar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., filed W.P. No. 14942/91 seeking ...
S.B. Dwarkanath and the Registrar, Osmania University Vs. R. Dilip Kum ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)ALT24
Sivaraman Nair, J.1. These appeals arise from the judgment of our learned brother Upendralal Waghray, J., in Writ Petition No. 1677/1990. Appeal No. 854/91 is filed by the 8th respondent: Appeal No. 864/91 is filed by petitioners 1 to 3; and Appeal No. 977/91 is filed by respondent No. 2. We will refer to the parties in the order as they were arrayed in the Writ Petition.2. In Writ Petition No. 1677/90 petitioners challenged the appointment of respondents 8 to 13 as Lecturers in Law Colleges of Osmania University. Respondents 1 and 2 were the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University respectively. The Ist respondent was impleaded by his name as the 5th respondent in his capacity as the Chairman of the Selection Committee. Respondents 6 and 7 were the Principals of the University College of Law and Post Graduate College of Law respectively under the University. Secretary to Government, Education (UE) Department and Secretary of the University Grants Commission were respondents...
Panineeya Law College, Represented by Its President D.N. Sastry and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT389
ORDERD. Reddeppa Reddy, J.1. The constitutional validity of the rules called 'the Andhra Pradesh Institutions of Law (Regulation of Admissions into Courses in Law through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1989, framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms. No. 172, Education (Rules), dated 11th May, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'The LAWCET Rules'), made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of Section 3 read with Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, which was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in P. Venkateswara Rao v. Osmania University, 1990 (2) ALT 140. is again questioned in this batch of writ petitions. Incidentally, some other questions of law are raised. Also, some petitioners tried to highlight their difficulties in running the colleges.2. In the present batch of writ petitions, we are concerned with admissions for the academic year 1991-92 to first year l...
Dr. R. Uma Devi Vs. the Principal, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1992
Reported in: AIR1993AP38; 1992(3)ALT682
ORDER1. At issue, in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner who was born in a Vysya caste, which is a forward community retains her social status as such even after marriage to a person of different caste.2. In the instant case, the petitioner; though a Vysya by birth and was admitted into M.B.B.S. course under open category as at that time she was unmarried, after marriage to a person belonging to Besta (Fishermen) community which is a B.C. 'A' category has sought for admission into Post-Graduate Medical course (D.G.H) mentioning her social status as B.C. 'A' category as that of her husband and the same was granted and she had also paid the necessary fee in that regard. The petitioner had secured 153 marks and was assigned 67th rank. She did not misrepresent anything and has stated that she is a B.C. 'A' candidate as her husband was from a Besta caste. After admission, by proceedings dated 1-7-1992 she was issued with a notice proposing to cancel her selection oh the groun...
Chalasani Anjaneyulu (Huf) and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1992
Reported in: [1995]213ITR406(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. In Referred Case No. 78 of 1986, which arises under the Income-tax Act, the following question of law is referred to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the rental income from the house in question is assessable as income of the smaller Hindu undivided family consisting of the assessee and his wife ?' 2. In Referred Case No. 45 of 1987, which arises under the Wealth-tax Act, the following question of law is referred to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the value of the house and the site in question is assessable entirely as the property of the smaller Hindu undivided family consisting of the assessee and his wife ?' 3. As the abovesaid questions of law arose out of the same facts relating to the property in question, both the cases were heard together and are being dispo...
Labela Dharma Sahu Vs. the Commissioner for Civil Supplies and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT155
ORDERSubhashan Reddy, J.1. The rejection of permission to revive the old rice mill of the petitioner which had been functioning since 1964 under the impugned order dt. 6-5-1991 is not traceable to any of the provisions of the statute or the rules framed thereunder.2. Mr. Manmadareddy, appearing for the Govt. Pleader, says that eventhough there is no statutory provision or a statutory rule for imposition of restriction for opening the rice mill within 5 kilometres of the border area, but it is by an executive instruction. I cannot countenance this argument for the simple reason that by an executive instruction that too issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, such an embargo cannot be created. The same infracts the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is not an embargo under statute or rule framed in exercise of the powers contained under the said statute. It is also not disputed that several other rice mills are fun...
M. Shyam Prasad Reddy and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT535
ORDERIyyapu Panduranga Rao, J.1. This petition is directed to transfer C.C. No. 207 of 1991 on the file of the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Guduru to any court in the Metropolitan Division, Hyderabad for disposal according to law.2. Though number of points were urged in support of the transfer, only two points deserve consideration. They are: 1. That it is convenient for the petitioners and it is expedient for the ends of justice to have the matter tried at Hyderabad as contemplated under Section 407(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in brief 'the Code'); 2. The matter involves question of law of unusual difficulty coming under Section 407(1)(c) of the Code.3. Points 1 & 2: It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent who is the complainant in the case is a practising advocate at Guduru, the petitioners are feeling it highly difficult to get the services of any advocate at Guduru. Referring to this point at para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »