Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(2)ALD301
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Heard Sri M Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, Sri E, Ayyapu Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri K. Ravi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent and at their request the writ petition was taken up for final hearing.2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the 1st respondent in R.P.No.1024 of 2004 dated 5.10.2004, upholding the order of the 2nd respondent in LA. No.79/04 in O.A.No.21/ 04, dated 18.8.2004, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and for a direction to quash both the orders.3. Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that petitioners 1 to 6 claim to be the founder trustees of the subject institution - a Hanuman Temple constructed in the year 1984. The said institution, said to have sev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1977AP250
A. Sambasiva Rao, Ag.C.J. 1. All these matters are placed before a Full Bench in view of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India. There are writ petitions, writ appeals and a Supreme Court leave petition amongst them. These cases cover the entire gamut of Article. 226. which is newly substituted by the 42nd Amendment, the scope and amplitude of Section 58 of the Amendment Act and its impact on pending writ petitions, writ appeals and interlocutory petitions therein as well as petitions seeking leave for appeal to the Supreme Court. More than one Division Bench have referred several of the above cases seeking an authoritative pronouncement of a Full Bench on all these aspects, with the result that we will have to consider now in this judgment the full scope of Article. 226, as substituted by the 42nd Amendment and of Section 58 of that Amendment Act.2. We may also point out that none of the above cases is under Article. 227 and so much so, no arguments have been advanced on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1990)IILLJ540AP
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. These writ appeals arise in somewhat similar circumstances and raise common question. So they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petitions. The factual aspect of the Writ Appeals. 2. W.A. No. 873/85. The writ petitioner is the appellant in this writ appeal. He holds a degree of M.Sc., in Genetics from the Osmania University in 1979. In the same year, the University advertised a post of Lecturer in Genetics with specialisation in Immuno-Genetics for the appointment. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the said post. As the petitioner was the only candidate having Doctorate and requisite qualifications and specialisation, he was selected by the selection committee and was appointed as Lecturer in Osmania University with effect from 6th July 1979. He has been continuing as Lecturer since July, 1979. The Registrar, Osmania University, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(4)ALD758; 2003(2)ALT610; (2003)184CTR(AP)596; [2003]262ITR306(AP)
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. These R.Cs., may be disposed of by a common order, since the question referred for the opinion of this Court is common in all theses cases.2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench referred the following question, said to be a question of law, for the opinion of this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the exemption under Section 5(1)(xii) of the Wealth Tax Act in respect of 7 items of jewellery claimed to represent art treasures?'3. In this batch of cases, we are concerned only with the said question.4. In order to express our opinion, it is just and necessary to notice the relevant facts:The issue relates to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87. 5. His Exalted Highness, the late Nb. Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, created 'HEH the Nizam's Jewellery Trust' by the Indenture dated 29-3-1951. The said Settlor specified the names of the beneficiaries, their respective sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 27777 OF 201.and batch 20-08-2013 Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational Society (Regn No.662/1996) Plot No.102,High Court Colony, Vanasthalipuram,Hyderabad Rep. by its Secretary Rev. KVK Rao and others......... Petitioners The State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, Hyderabad...... Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P. Sri Raghuram Counsel for respondent No.1: G.P. for Higher Education Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri C. Sudesh Anand (SC for APSCHE) : ?Cases Referred:1. (2005) 6 SCC 53.2. 2008 (3) ALD 10.(DB) 3. AIR 195.SC 11.4. (2001) 2 SCC 38.5. (2013) 3 SCC 38.6. (2002) 8 SCC 48.7. (2009) 7 SCC 75.8. (1992) 1 SCC 55.9. (2012) 4 SCC 65.WRIT PETITION No. 27777, 27898, 27918, 28014, 28023, 28055, 28060, 28073, 28098, 28108, 28116, 28125, 28130, 28134, 28139, 28206, 28249, 28260, 28321, 28356, 28399, 28404, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU W.P.No.9070 of 2008 03-02-2014 V.Ravichandra..... PETITIONER Indian Bank, rep. by its General Manager/Appellate Authority for Award Staff,HRM Department, H.O.66, Rajaji Salai,Chennai - 600 001 and others.....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.Ravichandra, Party in person Counsel for respondents: Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana : ?.Cases referred:1. (1986) 3 SCC4542. AIR1993SC11973. (1991) 3 SCC2194. (1995) 6 SCC7495. (2006) 5 SCC886. (2006) 4 SCC7137. AIR1993SC11978. (2011) 7 SCC3259. (2010) 5 SCC77510. AIR2009SC16111. (2005) 10 SCC8412. (2000) 1 SCC41613. AIR2007SC19914. (2006) 2 SCC255HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WRIT PETITION No.9070 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner, an employee of the respondent Bank, having been removed from service on an allegation of misconduct, laid challenge against the said dismissal in the present writ petition. The facts in brief are as follows: The petitioner, when working as a Clerk/Shroff in one...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1954CriLJ1093
Misra, C.J.1. The following four questions have been referred by a Full Bench of three judges to a Fuller Bench of five judges:(1) Whether the Hyderabad Defence Regulation, having regard to its preamble, language, emergency and the constitutional set up at the State then existing was operative only during the period of emergency for which it was promulgated and should be deemed to have lapsed afterwards without any express repealment;(2) whether the directions contained in the Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order of 1355-F. about the publication of a press-note explaining its provisions read with R. 110 at the Defence of Hyderabad Rules are man-datory;(3) whether the directions by the Textile Commissioner about the markings on the bales having regard to the definition of 'Cloth'. 'Yarn' and other provisions of the Order of 1352-P., under which it was framed as well as the later Order are not within the scope of his delegated authority and therefore ultra vires; and(4) whether Sections 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961AP374; [1961]43ITR239(AP)
ORDERBasi Reddy, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of a notice dated 23-9-1958 issued by the respondent who is the Expenditure-tax Officer, Income-tax-cum-Wealth-tax Circle No. II, Hyderabad, under Section 13 (2) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and seeking an appropriate writ, more particularly a writ in the nature of prohibition, to forbid the respondent from taking any further steps under the Act. The petitioner denies his liability to be assessed under the Act and questions the jurisdiction of the respondent to proceed against him under the provisions of the Act.2. Expenditure-tax is a novel piece of taxation unknown to the taxing system of any other country and was introduced in our country by Act XXIX of 1957 which was enacted by Parliament on the 17th September, 1957 and came into force on the 1st April, 1958. The object of the measure is threefold : firstly, to augment public revenues; se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965AP372; 1965CriLJ585
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J . (1) In special cases Nos. 1 and 2 of 1962 , which were pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddapah (special Judge) Shaik Sheriff, who had originally been Municipal Commissioner of Proddatur, was the sole accused. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, C . I. D. Hyderabad was the complainant. In each of the charge-sheets, it was mentioned that the accused had committed offences under S. 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Central Act II of 1947 ) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The accused filed Cr. M. P. No. 139 of 1962 praying for being discharged in S. C. No. 1 of 1962. He filed a similar petition, Crl. M.P. No. 140 of 1962, praying for being discharged in S. C. No.2 of 1962. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge (Shri P. Anjaneya Raju), after full hearing, allowed the two petitions and passed a common order dated 12-9- 1962 discharging the accused under Section 251A(2) C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966AP204; 1966CriLJ741
Chandrasekhara Sastry, J. 1. In this is appeal and the petition, the validity of a proclamation made under Section 15 of the Police AL-I (Act V of 1861.) so far as it relates to the apportionment and exemptions made uder Sub Section (3), (4) and (5) of Section 15 of the said Ad is challenged as offending the fundamental right guaranteed under Article ]4 of the Constitution of India. The main facts that led to the finding of this appeal and the petition are the same There me two factions in the village of Narayanareddipalli. Tadipatri taluk. Anantapur District. The Station House Officer. Muchukota put up security eases M. C. Nos, 15/63 and 16/63 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Anantapnr, against the members belonging to the two factions. The appellants in the appeal seven in number, were respondents 3 to 7, 9 and 11 in M. C. 15/63. The petitioners in W. P. No. 1535/64 were also respondents in the said case. There were in all 38 respondents in M. C, 15/63. It was alleged ag...
Tag this Judgment!