Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1953CriLJ454
Palnitkar, C.J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgments prepared by my learned colleagues, M.A. Ansari and Srinivasa Chari JJ., which they are about to deliver. After carefully going through both of them, I agree with the conclusion arrived at by Ansari J.2. So far as the constitutional question is concerned, the three judgments of the Supreme Court, viz., - State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali : 1952CriLJ510 , - Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra : 1952CriLJ805 , and - Lachmandas Kewalram v. State of Bombay : 1952CriLJ1167 , declare the final word on the law as regards the validity of such special regulations. It is clear that Article 14 of the Constitution condemns discrimination not only by substantive law but also by law of procedure. The Hyderabad Special Tribunals (Termination) and Special Judges (Appointment) Regulation No. X of 1359 Fasli, provides certain special procedure different from that laid down in the ordinary law of criminal procedure and it is to be decided...
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 : AIR1955AP257
Chandra Reddy, J .(1) This interpretation of Rr. 18 (2) and 5 (1) (g). Turnover and Assessment Rules framed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by R. 3, Sub-rr. 4 and 5, Madras General Sales Tax Act is involved in this Revision Case. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1949-50. The petitioner is registered as a manufacturer under R. 18. The assessee-company purchase ground-nuts and converts them into oil both refined and hydrogenated. A deduction was claimed both under R. 18 (2) and R. 5 (1) (g). The department declined to grant the deduction under both the heads on the ground that in the first case the oil sold by the petitioners was not the same commodity which was obtained by pressing the kernel and in regard to the second that the freight was not included in the price of the commodity as contemplated in R. 5 (1) (g).(2) On appeal, the Sales Tax Tribunal allowed the deduction in respect of refined oil but refused it with regard to the hydrogenated oil and fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1959]35ITR87(AP)
Srinivasachari, J. 1. The following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 40, 000 received from M/s. Chisty & Co., under the compromise deed dated 22nd December, 1943, is assessable to tax ?'2. The facts which led to the reference being made by the Appellate Tribunal may be briefly stated :The assessee in this case is a business man carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of oil expellers and was the sole distributor for a certain type of oil expeller manufactured by Chisty & Co., Lahore, for the whole of India. By an agreement dated 15th February, 1938, the assessee was appointed as the sole distributor. Under the terms of the agreement, the principals were not to deal directly or indirectly with any party. The agent agreed to purchase four expellers every month. Under the terms of the agreement this agency was to be in force for a period of six years cert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1962CriLJ318
Basi Reddy, J.1. On the evening of the 28th April, 1959 at about 7 P.M. whilst one Narayans Reddy (P.W. 1) was seated on the 'plal1 outside his house in Jutur village, a bomb was hurled at him and as a result of the explosion, although he escaped death, he was seriously wounded in the leg and disabled for life. In connection with' this incident, the two, appellants (who will be referred to as A-l and A-2 respectively) were tried, convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge or Anantapur as under: A-l was convicted Under Section 307 J.P.C. and Under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years under each count. A-2 was convicted Under Section 307 read with Section 109 IPC and Under Section 3 read with Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years under each count. The sentences of both the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.(Here His Lordship narrated the fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1964AP172
Venkatesam, J. 1. These three appeals arise out of three suits disposed of by a common judgment by the District Judge, of West Godavari at Eluru, in O.S. Nos. 48 and 36 of 1957 and O.S. No. 17 of 1958, respectively. These suits arose out of claims against the South-Eastern Railway, Calcutta, in O. S. No. 36 or 1957, and the Southern Railways. Madras, in the other two cases, claiming compensation for loss of goods in a fire accident, which took place in the railway goods-shed at Eluru.2. The relevant fact? in A. S. 47 of 1950 may be stated thus:The plaintiff Eastern Match Company, Tirumangalam, in Madurai District, delivered at Tirumangalam Railway Station, within the Southern Railway Administration, on 11-10-1956 two consignments of safety matches consisting of 56bundles for being forwarded to Eluru Railway Station on the same railway, and obtained from the railway authorities two Railway Receipts, Nos. G/283748, Invoice No. 1. Goods Forwarding Note No. 21, and G/283749, Invoice No. 2,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1971]28STC84(AP)
N. Kumarayya, C.J. 1. This tax revision case raises a short point as to whether 'electric detonators' manufactured by the assessee, the Indian Detonators Ltd. are 'electrical goods' falling within entry 37 of Schedule I to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, so that they may be subjected to sales tax at the rate of 7 per cent. A 'detonator' is an explosive accessory for initiating high explosives. It is used for blasting purposes and is issued only against special licence to be obtained by persons concerned with blasting or mining operations. It contains chemical composition inside a metallic tube, whether aluminium or copper, which is closed at one end. In this tube are compressed two charges of initiating explosives successively. One is base charge and the other is priming charge. The chemical mixture in each of them is somewhat different from the other. The tube with explosives thus compressed thereinto forms a 'detonator'. In order that this detonator may function, it i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1973]30STC528(AP)
A.D.V. Reddy, J.1. The revision and the appeal arise out of the orders of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 1968.2. The accused are residents of Santhanuthalapad. A charge-sheet was filed against them in the court of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, by the Circle Inspector of Police for offences under Sections 147, 332 and 427 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, alleging that the accused, 13 in number, had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 20th August, 1967, at about 11-30 P.M. and assaulted P.W. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer, as well as his peon, P.W. 7, when they had come along with others of the department and had asked for inspection of the account books in the mill premises and had also caused damage to the jeep which was stationed outside. In support of their case, the prosecution had examined 16 witnesses.3. The facts spoken to by them are briefly as follows: On 20th August, 1967, at about 10-30 P.M., P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1973CriLJ403
Obul Reddi, J.1. These two an peals. Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1970 preferred by the State, and Criminal Appeal No. 887 of 1969 preferred by the two appellants (A-1 and A-2) arise out of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. Hyderabad in SC No. 62 of 1969 on his file.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these two anneals, may be briefly set out. A section of the students joined the agitation started for a separate State for Telangana area. The Commissioner of police had issued Prohibitory Orders banning all kinds of meetings and processions without his prior permission. A meeting of 'Telangana Praia Samithi' was held on 6.4.1969 and there was police bandobust to prevent any untoward incident. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 and A-2 and A-4 had conspired to hurl explosives at the police parties stationed for 'Bandobust' in the disturbed areas of Secunderabad. These three accused sought the co-operation of A-3 who is said to have experience in the preparation of e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973AP315
Gopal Rao Ekbote, C.J. 1. This appeal is from the judgment of our learned brother M. Krishna Rao, J., given in W. P. No. 1579 of 1970 on 3-3-1972 whereby the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notice.2. The facts in outline are that the petitioner-Company has a number of mines wherein building stones and limestone are extracted. One of such mines is Kaidgira lime stone mine situated in the District of Hyderabad. The said mine is an open cast quarry. It is engaged in extraction of building stones and lime stones.3. The Joint Director of Mines Safety issued the impugned notice under Section 22(1) of the Mines Act directing the petitioner-company to appoint a qualified Mines Manager under Section 17 of the Act. The petitioner-company submitted its explanation on 1-4-1970 contending inter alia that the provisions, except those mentioned in Section 3, are not applicable and as a result, the Joint Director cannot ask the petitioner-company to appoint a Manager a...
Tag this Judgment!