Andhra Pradesh Court September 1998 Judgments

Hyderabad Deccan Cigarettes Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax A.P ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD804; 1998(6)ALT701; [1999]236ITR615(AP)

ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J. 1.The following three questions were referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this Court.'1. Whether the value of the motor vehicles should be taken as part of the value of plant and machinery for purposes of determining the industrial undertaking to be a small scale industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 32-A(2)(b)(ii) ? 2. Whether the definition of (plant) given in Section 43(3) of the Act should be applied even while determining the value of an industrial undertaking as a small scale industrial undertaking under Section 32-A(2)(b)(ii) of the IT Act ? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee is a small scale industrial undertaking and if so, is it entitled to investment allowance ?'2. The facts in brief are as follows:The assessee carries on the business ofmanufacture of cigarettes. It claimed investment allowance under Section 32-A. Since the cigarettes manufactured fall under the items specified in the 11th Schedule...

M. Raja Reddy Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD166; 1998(6)ALT589

ORDER1. Heard both the Counsel.2. Both the Counsel have agreed to dispose of the main writ petition.3. Mr. Anjaneyulu, the learned Counsel for the petitioner questions the notice of No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is the Mandal Parishad President, Raichoti elected on 18-3-1995.A notice of intention to move No-Confidence Motion was given to the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer on 2-5-1998 for convening a meeting. The 1st respondent issued a notice on 13-5-1998 to all the members fixing the date for No-Confidence Motion as 5-6-1998 at 11 a.m.4. He further submits that the members who moved the 1st respondent for convening a meeting of No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner, issued notice to the 1st respondent on 2-5-1998, but not as contemplated under Rule 3 issued under Section 245 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, as the date of meeting was fixed by the 1st Respondent on 5-6-1998 which is beyond 30 days; as such, the same is invali...

Thakur Bahadur Singh and Another Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD101; 1998(5)ALT567

ORDER1. This case has astoundingly brought to the fore how a noble, laudable and public justice-oriented legal process, that is what we call 'Public Interest Litigation (PIL)' which is essentially and initially meant to provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and citizens, can be misused and abused by mere meddlesome interlopers, without any element of public interest either in their heart or in mind, to have their own axe to grind against an individual for an oblique consideration and as a vexatious measure. 2. The facts are simple, and in brief, they are: The third respondent was appointed as Village Administrative Officer (VAO) by the proceeding of the District Collector, Warrangal district dated 17-2-1992. The first petitioner submitted a representation dated 17-1-1994 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warrangal through his advocate, Sri T. Lakshma Reddy alleging that the third respondent secured the job by producing bogus HSC pass certificate. The second p...

S. Shyamprasad Rao Vs. Union Govt. of India and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD349; 1998(6)ALT121

ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J. 1. The concept of locus standi has had a steady refinement by the law Courts over the years. With the changing staicturc of the society and complexities in life, mere was matter of fact an ardent effort on the part of the judiciary to liberalise the concept of locus standi. On the wake of 21st Century, probably a rigid insistence on the strict rules of the concept of the locus standi cannot but be termed to be opposed to the present day concept of justice. Needless to record, however, that with the changing structure of the society, the concept of justice has also had a very wide change. The observations of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Gupta and others v. Union of India, : [1982]2SCR365 , lend support to the view expressed above. Bhagwaihi, J., (as His Lordship then was) very succinctly observed:'Today a vast revolution is taking place in the judicial process; the theatre of the law is fast changing and the problems of the poor are coming to t...

Gayam Eswaramma Vs. Government of A.P. and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD143; 1998(6)ALT308

ORDER1. This writ petition is filed challenging the validity of the explanation to Rule 6 of the Rules framed in G.O. Ms. No.200, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Mandal-I), dated 28-4-1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), rotating to the motion of no confidence against the Upa-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat or President or Vice-President of Mandal Parishad, or Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Zilla Parishad, as being ultra vires of Section 245(2) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (in short referred to as 'the Act') and consequently declare the proceedings of vote of no confidence moved against the petitioner as illegal and without jurisdiction.2. According to the case of the petitioner, petitioner is Mandal President of Hanumanthapadu Mandal, Prakasam District and there are 8 MPTC members in the said Mandal Parishad. The office of the President of the Mandal Parishad is reserved for woman candidate and the petitioner is the woman President. It is the further case of the...

Commissioner of Income-tax A.P.-ii, Hyd. Vs. P.B. Jai Sing

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD709; 1998(6)ALT431

ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J 1. The Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court.'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the correct interpretation of Section 77(1), the share of the loss sustained by the unregistered firm in assessment year 1973-74 (M/s. Sawan Films) can be carried forward and set off from his income derived from other sources, for assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79? 2. If so, whether the revisionary order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P. n, dated 31-12-1984 was correctly passed and whether the Tribunal's order can be sustained?'2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposing of this reference case are as follows:The assessee was a Partner of M/s. Sawan Films, which was an unregistered firm and had three partners. By the assessment order dated 10-2-1983, the Income Tax Officer determined the loss sustained by the said unregistered firm at Rs. 3,75,528/-, which he ordered ...

Kailashi Bai Vs. Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD318; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)779; 1998(6)ALT99

ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J . 1. Thiswrit petition is filed by Smt. Kailashi Bai seeking for issuance of writ of Hebeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce her husband Ram Vilas Gupta @ Aggarwal who was detained in Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad, before this Court; to declare his detention as illegal and void and consequently set him at liberty.2. The brief averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows: The husband of the petitioner namely Ram Vilas Gupta @ Aggarwal was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by an order of the 1st respondent dated 3-2-1998 on the ground that her husband indulged in unauthorised transactions of currency which affected the Foreign Exchange resources of the country. Coming to know about the passing of the detention order, her husband himself surrendered before the police on 4-3-1998. Prior to the passing of the detention or...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.B. Jai Singh

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1999]237ITR513(AP)

S.V. Maruthi, J.1. The Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the correct interpretation of Section 77(2)(b), the share of the loss sustained by the unregistered firm in the assessment year 1973-74 ( Sawan Films) can be carried forward and set off from his income derived from other sources, for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 ?2. If so, whether the revisionary order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, AP-II, dated December 31, 1984, was correctly passed and whether the Tribunal's order can be sustained ?'2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposing of this reference case are as follows ;3. The assessee was a partner of Sawan Films, which was an unregistered firm and had three partners. By the assessment order dated February 10, 1983, the Income-tax Officer determined the loss sustained by the said unregistered firm at Rs. 3,75,528, ...

G. Usha Rani Vs. Joint Sub-registrar-i

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALT604

ORDERK.B. Siddappa, J.1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned notice P.No. 169/98 dated 10-6-1998 issued by the respondent to the Writ Petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.2. The petitioner was a successful bidder in the public auction and the bid amount was Rs. 3,45,000/-. She deposited the entire sale consideration with the Official Receiver, Chittoor. The Official Receiver executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 16-3-1998 and addressed a letter to the Respondent in Dis. No. 804, dated 16-3-1998 to register the sale deed while dispensing with his presence as per Section 88(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. A sum of Rs. 41,500/- towards stamp duty and Rs. 1,975/- towards registration fee was paid for the purpose of registration of the sale deed, on the value of the document i.e., the highest bid amount. In spite of that, a notice is given to pay the deficit stamp duty and registration fee and determined the mar...

Pulipati Raja Rao Vs. Divisional Electricity Engineer, A.P.S.E.B. and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. This is an unfortunate case in which we are unable to do justice to the complainant because of long gap of time which was inexplicably allowed to pass without any attention being paid. The appeal, FA. SR. No. 5/1998 itself was presented after a delay of 1314 days as per the calculation made by the learned Counsel presenting the appeal. The order appealed against is dated 18.4.1994. It must have been received in April, 1994 itself because according to the affidavit of the complainant filed in support of the application for condoning the delay (i.e. FA. IA. SR. No. 6/1998) he filed a review petition on 26.5.1994 itself. The appeal against the order dated 18.4.1994 was in fact presented on 1.1.1998. As the papers presented were not in order, the office returned the papers. Thereafter there was delay of 188 days in representation and FA. IA. No. 972/1998 was filed for condoning that delay of 188 days in representation. In the affidavit in support of that appl...