Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-08-1978
Reported in : 1983(12)ELT469(AP)
ORDERMadhava Reddy, J.1. These two writ petitions by a firm carrying on the business of purchase and sale of jewellery at Abid Road, Hyderabad call in question the order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad confirmed on appeal by the Gold Control Administrator and on revision by the Government of India.2. I may first state the facts relating to writ petition No. 811/78 which raised two main questions of which one is common to this and the other writ petition No. 733/78.3. On 26-11-66 nine insured parcels sent from Bombay by M/s. Chandu-lal Kushalchand were taken delivery of by the petitioner in the presence of the officials of the Customs and Central Excise Department. They were immediately opened and these parcels were found to contain bangles, kadas, kangan, gokuru and rings, in all 66 items all of gold weighing 4577.450 gms. The said officials held a panchanama, put the articles in a box and sealed the same. That panchanama was signed by Sarvasri Vinayachand Jai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-28-1978
Reported in : AIR1979AP182
Madhava Reddy, J.1. This writ petition comes up before us on reference by our learned Brothers, Kondaiah, J. and Lakshmaiah J. principally for the consideration of the question 'Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction and is competent to entertain an application under S. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by a single or a group of workmen in his or their individual capacity claiming minimum bonus under S. 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act against his or their employer and decide the questions relating to the claim of minimum bonus in view of S. 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act?'. Our learned brothers also observed that incidentally the nature, scope and ambit of S. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act falls for decision.2. M/s. Anand Oil Industries, a Partnership firm, hereinafter referred to as the employer, has filed this petition for the issuance of a writ of prohibition against the Labour Court Hyderabad (1st respondent herein) prohibiting it from deciding or proceeding with M. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-13-1978
Reported in : 1988(34)ELT49(AP)
Seetharam Reddy, J1. These three writ appeals arise out of a common order in W.P.Nos. 2423, 2424 and 3418 of 1975 made by our learned brother Kondaiah, J., dismissing the same as not competent and maintainable. The parties are common in all these writ appeals as well as the writ petitions, and common questions do arise for consideration out of the same. The same may be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The price point that arises in these writ appeals, is whether the appellant, who is a manufacturer of automobile ancillaries, is entitled to import Heat Resistance Steel (hereinafter referred to as H.R.S) based on the actual consumption. 3. The appellant - petitioner, who is common in all these three writ appeals, is a Small Scale Industrial Unit owned by a registered partnership known as Keshavji Ravji & Co., Madras, whose principal business is Imports and Exports, with its Head Office at Madras. The petitioner is a manufacturer, inter alia of automobile ancillaries. For the purpose ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-13-1978
Reported in : AIR1979AP280
Seetharama Reddy, J,1. These three writs appeals arise out of a common order in W. P. Nos. 2423, 2424 and 3418 of 1975 made by our learned brother Kondaiah, J. dismissing the same as not competent and not maintainable. The parties are common in all these Writ Appeals as well as the Writ Petitions, and common questions do arise for consideration out of the same. The same may be disposed of by a common judgment,2. The prime point that arises in these writ appeals, is whether the appellant a-he is a manufacturer of automobile ancillaries, is entitled to import Heat Resistant Steel hereinafter referred to HRS, based on the actual consumption.3. The appellant-petitioner, who is common to all these three Writ Appeals, is a Small Scale Industrial Unit owned by a registered partnership known as Keshavji Ravji & Co., Madras whose principal business is Imports and Exports, with its Head Office at Madras. The petitioner is a manufacturer, inter alia, of automobile ancillaries. For that purpose of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-25-1978
Reported in : AIR1979AP127
Kondaiah, J.1. This application by the petitioner-landholders under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is to quash the acquisition proceedings relating to their lands notified under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the purpose of construction of s Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited (2nd respondent herein)2. The 2nd respondent war incorporated for the manufacture or sugar as an industrial unit. About 20 acres of land belonging to the petitioners along with about 100 acres of land belonging to third parties are sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of sugar factory. This sugar factory is sought to be constructed pursuant to the Scheme sponsored by the Government with a view to encourage the Sugar industry as well as sugar-cane growers in the Nellore District and also to increase the production of sugar to meet acute shortage of sugar. As the land covered by the acquisition in question was found by the concerned authorities t...
Tag this Judgment!