Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1984)IILLJ140AP
Chennakesav Reddi, J.1. A controversy of considerable interest and public importance is aroused by this Writ Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. It is (a) whether right to employment is a fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 16 of the Constitution and (b) whether past prejudicial conduct and antecedents of a person relating to his subversive political activity prescribed as a disqualification for employment under Government of India in Office Memoranda dated 27th September, 1967 and 1st August, 1975 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, amounts to an infraction of the provisions of Art. 16 of the Constitution. 2. The controversy in this case grew out of the denial of employment to one Kalluri Vasayya, to a Civil post - a post of Time-Scale Clerk in the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department, Government of India. Vasayya, a Science Graduate, applied for the post of Time-Scale Clerk in the Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1986]60CompCas568(AP)
Kodandaramayya, J.1. Among numerous question of law, two interesting company law problems are raised in this civil appeal by Sri T. Veerabhadraiah, the learned counsel for the appellants : (1) Whether a conveyance is necessary to vest the property of a firm when the same was converted into a company (2) Similarly whether such conveyance is necessary to claim title by the company in respect of property acquired by the promoter before its incorporation 2. A considerable time and lengthy debate had taken place and, hence, we are impelled to state this in the forefront. Now, we shall state the facts. 3. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 36 of 1969 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayawada, are the appellants in this appeal. The suit is laid for eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule site after declaring the suit lease as duly terminated, removing the structures and deliver vacant possession of the same. The plaintiffs are grandsons of one Vali Subbarayudu and it is ave...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1987AP53
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Ever since 1963 when the Supreme Court rendered the decision in what has come to be popularly known as 'Balaji's Case' : AIR1963SC649 which is referred to as locus Classicus of learning on Backward Classes, volumes have been written on the question of reservation in educational institutions and services in favour of Backward Classes. High learning has flown into the views expressed by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments rendered subsequently on the subject. Even so, the problems arising in this regard still defy solution. It is unfortunate that developments over a quarter of a century have not given a quietus to this problem. It is well to refer to the following observations of Venkataramiah J., in K. C. Vasanthkumar v. State of Karnataka : AIR1985SC1495 'The questions involved in these cases are delicate ones and have, therefore, to be tackled with great caution. The issues raised here and the decision rendered on them are bound to have a great impact on soci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1988]169ITR174(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The petitioners question the legislative competence of Parliament to levy capital gains tax on transfer of agricultural lands situated within the limits of the municipalities (with a population of more than 10,000) and within a radius of 8 kilometres thereof. Article 14 of the Constitution is also brought in to impugn the validity of the levy. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the facts in W. P. No. 2592 of 1981. 2. The petitioner owns agricultural lands within a radius of 8 kms. of Nellore Municipal limits. He sold 5 acres out of it in July, 1976, for a consideration of Rs. 45,000. He did not submit a return showing any income on that account. Even otherwise, he is not an income-tax assessee. The Income-tax Officer, D-Ward, Nellore, issued a notice under section 139(2) of the Act, in response to which the petitioner filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 5,630 as capital gain arising out of the said transaction and Rs. 2,500 as agricultural inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1989AP96
ORDER1. This bunch of cases gives birth to constitutional questions of far-reaching consequences entwined with contempt for disobedience to writs of Mandamus issued by this Court.2. The indisputable facts are: that preceding the Andhra Pradesh Education Act (Act 1 of 1982), the Grant-in-Aid Code (Executive Instructions) was in vogue; the Government prescribed the procedure to establish private educational institutions; conditions for recognition and of the eligibility to grant-in-aid. Those conditions have been statutorised under Section 21 thereof. On their fulfilment the educational institutions become eligible for admission to grant-in-aid. G.O. Ms. No. 725, Education dt. July 7, 1977 directed to admit all the institutions started prior to April 4, 1977 to grant-in-aid in a phased manner between 1977 and 1980. The Government, in G.O. Ms. No. 238, Education dt. May 27, 1986 issued orders directing that the schools started on or after April 1, 1977 and were continuing as on Sept. 1, 1...
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 : (1990)89CTR(AP)43; [1990]182ITR242(AP)
Seetharam Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner who was a legal practitioner and was later elevated as a judge of this court in November, 1983 (since recently retired), impugns the validity of the note dated March 10, 1988, issued by the Income-tax Officer concerned under section 148 of the Income-tax Act proposing to reassess certain income on the ground that it has escaped assessment for the assessment year 1983-84. 2. Format : The assessee-petitioner returned a gross income of Rs. 2,57,571 for the assessment year 1983-84 and after claiming statutory deductions, the net income returned was Rs. 2,40,245 and on due assessment, requisite tax was paid. A notice dated March 10, 1988 was, however, issued by the Income-tax Officer, salary Circle, under section 148 of the Income-tax (for short 'the Act') proposing to reassess the income for the said assessment year, requiring him to file a return as he had reason to believe that certain income chargeable to tax for the said year has escaped assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1990]185ITR517(AP)
S. Parvatha Rao, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, a partnership firm, questions the order, Hqs. No. I/59/83-84 dated March 12, 1985, of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Visakhapatnam, rejecting its petition under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and declining to reduce/waive the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) and (iii) of the Act. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus, etc., directing the Commissioner of Income-tax, Visakhapatnam, to waive under section 273A the penalties levied by the Income-tax Officer, A ward, Rajahmundry, for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1976-77, as the petitioner had satisfied all the conditions prescribed in section 273A of the Act. 2. The petitioner-firm filed returns of income for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-77 and the assessments in respect of the said years were completed by the Income-tax Officer by December 31, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1990]186ITR9(AP)
Ramanujulu Naidu, J.1. This is petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated January 11, 1985, passed by the first respondent in H.R.S. No. 1/62/IT/1981-82 after calling for the records connected therewith and for directing the first respondent to act according to law. 2. The petitioner, a registered firm, engaged in the business of purchasing and selling dry fish, is an assessee on the rolls of the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Vijayawada, the second respondent. For the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, the second respondent assessed the petitioner-firm to tax on total incomes of Rs. 1,03,970, Rs. 1,19,170 and Rs. 1,42,700, respectively. On September 11, 1980, the staff of the Income tax Department conducted a survey operation under section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. During the said operation, some books of account of the petitioner-firm left in the cu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(3)ALT433
Sardar Ali Khan, J.1. This batch of Writ Petitions concerns the appointment of a person or persons-in-charge till the elections are conducted to the various Co-operative Societies with consequential suitable directions to the respondents to refrain from appointing such person or persons replacing the Managing Committees till the elections are conducted.2. With the exception of a few writ petitions, field before the passing of Ordinance No. 5 of 1990, dated June 30, 1990, all the other writ petitions challenge the provisions of the said Ordinance No. 5 of 1990, dated June 30, 1990 as being totally unconstitutional and void and fit to be struck down as such. The common prayer in all the writ petitions is to allow the elected Managing Committees of the petitioner-Societies to continue till properly elected bodies take over the Management.3. In view of the common questions of fact and law, involved in the matter, we have heard the batch of writ petitions together and are of the opinion tha...
Tag this Judgment!