Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-07-1977
Reported in : AIR1978AP121
S. Obul Reddi, C.J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the constitutional validity of S. 15-A of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, as inserted by Act 6 of 1977, is questioned on the ground that the said section is ultra vires Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India. As the question involved is common to all the petitions, we may refer to the facts stated by the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 1892, 1929, 1732, 2025 and 2316 of 1977.2. In W. P. No. 1892 of 1977, the petitioner is Sri Chodeswaraswami Co-operative Credit Society, Sanipalli lanka in Amalapuram taluk, East Godavari district, represented by its President, Bobba Janakiramiah. The respondents are (1) Government of Andhra Paradesh, represented by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department (2) The District Collector, East Godavari District and (3) the Divisional Co-Operative Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari district. The petitioner-society was registered in the year 1946 and the area of operation of the soc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-27-1977
Reported in : AIR1978AP200
Smabasiva Rao, J.1. Is the operation of S. 56 (1) of the Andra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Abolition Act') limited only to the purposes of Ss. 55 and 56 (1) (a) and (b) of that Act? Cannot the Settlement Officer decide the question as to who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding is when such a dispute arises whole considering the application or applications filed under S. 11 of the Abolition Act for granting ryotwari pattas and also when a similar question arises under the other provisions of the Abolition Act? A Full Bench of three Judges of this Court answered the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative in Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya : AIR1974AP85 (FB). A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Divan, C. J. and Ameraswari J. doubted the correctness of this view and felt that it required reconsideration. That is why as many as five of us are obliged to examine the question.2. The dispute ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-21-1977
Reported in : [1980]46STC232(AP)
S. Sambasiva Rao, J. 1. The question formulated by our learned brothers Chennakesav Reddy and Madhava Rao JJ. whiel referring the writ petition to a Full Bench is; 'Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer has jurisdiction to issue a warrant of arrest and detention of a defaulter under Sec. 48 of the Revenue Recovery Act.' This is one of the questions which arise in the petition filed seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Though our learned brothers have referred the case itself to a Full Bench , learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that besides this question there are many other points which he seeks to urge in the writ petition and therefore requested us to give our opinion on it and remit back the matter to the Division Bench. Acceding to this request, we will now proceed to answer the question 2. It appears there are arrears of sales tax of an extent of Rs. 33,274-65 ps due from the petitioner. By proceedings dt. 25-6-1977 the Revenue Divisional officer. Cuddapah expressed the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-25-1977
Reported in : 1978(2)ELT556(AP)
Lakshmaiah, J.1. This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari seeking the quashing of the order passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad, dated 5-7-1973 by which the petitioner was required to pay a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The petitioner M/s Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act carrying on among other things the business of manufacturing refrigerators. The company is under the management of the State Government which owns more than 50 per cent of the shares and it is a Government Company.3. There was a stock taking by the Officers of the Central Excise Department in the petitioner's premises from 3-12-1969 to 23-12-1969, as a result of which it was alleged that the petitioner had not satisfactorily maintained the accounts of production, manufacture, storage delivery or disposal of the goods and that the ...
Tag this Judgment!