Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-24-1987
Reported in : AIR1988AP77
Jagannadha Rao, J.1. All these cases arise under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Act 21 of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They raise questions concerning the rights of protected tenants and the statutory conferment of ownership rights on them under S. 38-E of the Act. In Chinnaboini Narsaiah v. Tahslidar, Mahaboobabad, Warangal District, (1979) I Andh WR (HC) 23 a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Madhava Reddy, J. (as he then was) and Narsinga Rao J. had occasion to deal with S. 38-E and connected provisions of the Act. After the said judgment, the Legislature amended the Act by the Amending Act 2 of 1979. Subsequent to the said amendment to the Act, the same questions were again raised before another Division Bench of this Court in Chennaiah v. State of A. P. : AIR1983AP34 consisting of K. Ramachandra Rao, J. (as he then was) and Sriramulu, J. In the order of reference now made to the Full Bench, it is pointed out by the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-01-1987
Reported in : AIR1988AP129
Bhaskaran, C.J.1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') established under 5. 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act 1950 (Central Act 64 of 1950) is a State Transport Undertaking within the meaning of S.68A(b)(H) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (Central Act 4 of 1939) (for short, 'the Act'). The Corporation had, in terms of 5. 68C of the Act prepared as many as 291 draft schemes dt. Aug., 14, 1986 proposing to nationalise bus service on routes covered by them in the districts of Nellore and Prakasam and got them published in the Official Gazette dt. Aug. 22, 1986. These writ petitions, by persons providing passenger transport service in the concerned districts, are f or the issue of writs of certiorari quashing the Government Orders dt. Feb. 13, 1987, published in the Official Gazette dt. Feb. 17, 1987, according approval to those drafts schemes. 2. We would now narrate the sequence of events leading to the institution of these writ petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-09-1987
Reported in : [1988]174ITR733(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. This special appeal has been preferred under section 269H of the Income-tax Act. The appellant is the transferee of property in respect of which proceedings have been taken under Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Against the order of the Competent Authority, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 269G. The appeal was entertained and notice was given to the Department. At the hearing of the appeal, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Department that the appeal itself is time-barred and must be rejected in limine on that ground itself. The Tribunal heard both the parties on this question and upholding the objection taken by the Department dismissed the appeal as time-barred, without going into the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal is questioned. An appeal to the Tribunal is provided by sub-section (1) of section 269G which reads as follows : 'A...
Tag this Judgment!