Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(5)ALD481
S.R. Nayak, J.1. On remand of the proceedings by the Apex Court these three writ petitions are placed before us for hearing.2. The above writ petitions are filed by the petitioners assailing the assessment orders passed under the provisions of the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (for short the 'Act'). WP No.24554 of 1999 relates to the assessment for the period from 1-8-1990 to 31-1-1992 and from 1-2-1992 to 31-1-1999. The primary authority made assessment in respect of these two spells on 29-4-1999. WP No.8023 of 2001 relates to the assessment for the period from 1-2-1999 to 30-9-1999 and the order of the assessing authority is dated 6-9-2000. WP No.8101 of 2001 relates to the assessment for the period from 1-10-1999 to 31-8-2000 and the date of assessment order is 26-12-2000. In other words these three writ petitions are filed assailing the assessment for the period from 1-8-1990 to 31-8-2000 as affirmed by the appellate authority under Section 13 of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1964AP363; (1963)IILLJ488AP
ORDERGopalakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner who is an employer seeks a writ of Prohibition to restrain the Labour Court, Guntur, from taking proceedings in pursuance of the reference dated 2-12-1961 made by the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as the Act).2. The main ground on which this Writ Petition is rested is that the Government had no jurisdiction to make the impugned order of reference at a time when two valid awards made by the same Labour Court in I. D. No. 33 of 1960 and I. D. No. 23 of 1961 on previous references by the Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act, were in operation. The two prior awards were published by the Government in the official gazette on 12-10-1961. Under Section 19(3) of the Act those awards would remain in operation till 11-11-1962. Even thereafter they would continue to bind the parties unless and until a period of two months has elapsed from the date on which notice is given by one o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965AP466
(1) This second appeal is from the judgment of the District Judge, Nizamabad, given on 30th July, 1960, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants was allowed and the plaintiffs suit dismissed. The short but important question which must necessarily be answered in this second appeal is whether S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) governs a case, where the last Hindu male-holder died before the commencement of the Act and where he was succeeded by a female having limited interest, she without becoming the absolute owner, died after the Act came into force. In order to find out a satisfactory answer to this question it is necessary to mention a few facts. the plaintiffs - appellant instituted a suit for a declaration that the alienation made by Sayamma, the 1st defendant, who lands under a sale deeds, dated 9-12-1955 is a sham and nominal transaction and that the plaintiffs are the nearest reversioners to Pedda Saidu, the last male-holder of the propert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2003]129TAXMAN430(AP)
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.The question referred to us by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in this reference reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct incoming to the conclusion that conditions precedent for assuming jurisdiction under section 25(2) of the Wealth Tax Act are not satisfied in the case ?'2. The facts giving rise to the question are briefly these : The assessee was an individual and the respective valuation dates are 31-3-1982, 31-3-1983 and 31-3-1984. The assessee submitted wealth-tax returns disclosing negative wealth. He claimed exemption in respect of the value of annuity policies on the basis of the Appellate Assistant Commissioners order dated 3-1-1983 for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 in his own case.3. As on respective valuation dates, the assessee was stated to have held annuities of the value of Rs. 38,09,898, Rs. 39,09,582 and Rs. 36,89,575. The simple claim of the assessee was that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1964AP462
ORDER1. These two revision petitions are from the order dated 10-10-1960 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Nellore in S. C. No. 160/1959. That suit was on the foot of a pronote elated 10-5-1951 executed by the 1st defendant and scribed and attested by two other partners of the firm 'Nune Venkatarami Setti and Company'. The pronote debt was contracted for the purposes of partnership business. A few payments were made by the partners towards the said pronote. One of the attestors Kochi Ramalingaiah, the father of defendants 7 and 8 and husband of 9th defendant died on 20-1-1955. With that the partnership stood dissolved in the eye of law. But its business nevertheless continued to be carried on by the managing partner. Even after the death of Ramalingiah, some payments were made towards the said pronote. These payments with which we are concerned for the purposes of the case were made by the 1st defendant who had also made endorsements on the pronote to that effect. These are Exs. A.8 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1975]99ITR41(AP)
Sriramulu, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), referred the following two questions of law for our opinion :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty is leviable under Section 271(1)(a) when the assessee filed a voluntary return of income within the time prescribed under Section 139(4) of the Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is open to the Income-tax Officer to levy the penalty under Section 271(1) at a lesser rate than 2% of the tax ?' 2. The material facts giving rise to the reference may briefly be stated: Under Section 139(1) of the Act the assessee had to file its return of income for the assessment year 1963-64 on or before September 30, 1963. The assessee did not file the return by September 30, 1963, but filed an application dated October 15, 1963, requesting the Income-tax Officer to e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976AP1
Madhava Reddy, J. 1. The maintainability of these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India during the period in which proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 and the declaration of the President of India under cl. (1) of Article 359 is in force and the validity of the amendments effected in the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971, by the two Amending Ordinances of 1975 arise for consideration in these writ petitions. Having regard to the general importance of these questions and the far reaching consequences of these amendments these petitions have been referred to a Full Bench. 2. The first of these writ petitions is for the release of an advocate of this Court, Sri P. Venkateswarlu, who was arrested and detailed under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to the 'Principal Act'. 3. Sri P. Venkateswarlu was arrested on the intervening night of 25/26th June, 1975 at 1-30 A.M. under Section 3(1)(a) of the Maintenance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
COMMON ORDER: 1. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.7063 of 2008 are accused 1 to 3 in C.C. No.48 of 2008 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, Saroornagar women police station filed the charge-sheet in the said case alleging that P. Krishna Reddy and P. Kalavathi are the parents of Saritha, the 1st respondent in Criminal Petition No.7063 of 2008. Saritha was married to the 1st accused on 27-08-2005 and on the same day the 1st accused and Saritha left for the United States of America, as Saritha had to report at West Virginia University on 29-08-2005. Soon after arriving at the United States of America, the 1st accused demanded Saritha for money and took away 35 tulas of gold from her. The parents of Saritha visited the United States of America from 12-10-2005 to 07-11-2005 and still the 1st accused harassed Saritha physically and mentally and threatened her and her parents. Saritha gave ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(3)ALT346; 1992CriLJ328
Bhaskar Rao, J.1. These two are petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the two orders dated 12-3-1991 passed by the 2nd respondent and for setting one M. Ramulu (husband of the petitioner in W.P. 4534/91) and another M. Vasudev (husband of the petitioner in W.P. 4555/91) at liberty forthwith. In exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the 2nd respondent directed detention of two detenus in the Central Prison, Hyderabad. Pursuant thereto, both the detenus were arrested and lodged in the Central Prison. 2. The two detention orders reveal that the two detenus, who are partners and transport contractors of Indian Oil Corporation and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, had indulged in large scale clandestine business in petroleum products by illegally...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1987)63CTR(AP)297; [1987]167ITR703(AP)
K. Ramaswamy, J. 1. The assessee has to file his wealth-tax return on or before June 30, of the relevant assessment year, but filed his return of wealth for the assessment year 1960-61 in August, 1971, beyond the stipulated time under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (Act No. 27 of 1957), for short, 'the Act'. Wealth-tax assessment order for 1960-61 was made on August 22, 1972, and later on the Wealth-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(a) of the Act. The explanation offered by the assessee for delay in filing the return was not accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer . He imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,130 by order dated March 26, 1975. On appeal, the penalty was confirmed by order dated February 24, 1976, but the Wealth-tax Officer was directed to compute penalty as per law prior to March 31, 1969. On further appeal to the Tribunal, following the ratio of this court in CWT v. V. R. Desai : [1977]108ITR787(AP) , the Tribunal by order dated July 11, 1977, held that the defa...
Tag this Judgment!