Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1977AP139
Sambasiva Rao, J.1. A question of topical importance relating to delivery of agricultural land in pursuance of an execution Court sale vis-a-vis the land reforms enactments, which have been recently passed by the Legislature of Andhra Pradesh, arises in this revision petition. Our learned brother A.V. Krishna Rao, J., placed this matter before a Division Bench in view of this importance.2. This is an auction-purchaser's revision petition. In execution of a decree in O.S. 279/71 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Razole, the decree-holder got attached agricultural land of Ac. 16-35 cents on 22nd of January, 1972. It is stated that the total holding of the judgment-debtor is Ac. 19-38 cents. The attached land was sold on 8-10-1973 and the same was confirmed by the Court on 25-9-1974. The auction-purchaser filed E.A. 1506/74 for delivery of the property; The judgment-debtor, who is the respondent, filed E.A. No. 377/75 seeking dismissal of the auction-purchaser's application for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1987]67STC48(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. These petitions raise the question of the power of this Court to grant a stay of collection of tax pending a tax revision case preferred under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. 2. Against an order of assessment made by the assessing authority, an appeal is provided by section 19. A further appeal is provided by section 21 to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Apart from the above, against an order of assessment made, a power of revision is vested in the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and the Commercial Tax Officer, by sub-section (2) of section 20. This power is confined to orders made or proceedings recorded by the authorities, officers or persons subordinate to them. Similarly, sub-section (1) of section 20 confers the power of revision upon the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. These powers are supposed to be exercised in the interest of Revenue. Against an order of the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or the Commercial T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(5)ALD32; 2003(5)ALT38
ORDERN.V. Ramana, J.1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a declaration that the action of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') in fixing a new IL-24 shop for Lingasamudram Mandal of Prakasham District, with a slab licence fee of Rs. 3,00,000/-, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the excise policy declared by the Government.2. According to the petitioner, there are three shops in Lingasamudram Mandal, one in the name of the petitioner, M/s. Sreenivasa Wines, and the other two in the names of M/s. Vigneshwara Wines and M/s. Kokila Wines. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the policy decision taken by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 389, dated 13-3-2003, only the licences of the existing licensees are to be renewed subject to their fulfilling the formalities and other conditions, and in case the existi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(6)ALD217; 2000(6)ALT1
ORDER1. In recent times, the wind of reform which aims at paving the way for a healthy, dynamic, financially viable and self-sustained growth of the power sector to meet the ever increasing demand for electricity from various categories of customers on an equitable basis both in terms of quality and quantity as well as of reasonable tariff so as to facilitate a rapid growth of the Nation's economy is blowing in almost all the States in India. Sometimes, as in the case of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the blowing of the reform wind was very hard, strong and hurting too against certain hitherto protected and favoured categories of consumers of electricity like agriculturists and domestic consumers, irrespective of thefact whether it is justified or not. This resulted in perceived shock and dismay and spontaneously generated persistent and percurrent protests, rallies, agitations ending, at times, with unpardonable violence denounced with abomination and righteous indignation by the Father...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The second petitioner is the proprietor of wholesale dealer under Food Grain Licence bearing FGL No. 1/PKL/2000. Her nephew is the first petitioner in charge of the shop. On 22.01.2001 at 3.50 p.m., third respondent surprised the shop. Under a Panchanama he seized 392 bags (50 kg each) of raw rice and nine bags (50 kg each) of boiled rice. Based on his report, first respondent framed the following four charges:(1) Petitioners were not in practice of issuing bills to the customers and thereby contravened condition 10 of the Licence issued under APSCD (L&D;) Order, 1982 and Clause 7(1) of the AP Exhibition of Price Lists of Goods Order, 1966;(2) Petitioners have not submitted Form 'C' returns to the Licensing Authority and thereby contravened condition 4 of the licence issued under APSCD (L&D;) Order, 1982;(3) Petitioners have not exhibited price lists board and thereby contravened condition 8 of the licence and Clause 3 of the AP Exhibition of Price Lists of Goods ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
:ORDER: 1. The petitioner is owner of Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.KA-01-MC 8332. He had purchased the car in the State of Karnataka with the financial assistance provided by Reliance Capital, Bangalore. He paid life tax of Rs.39,463/- vide challan No.CF/3092133, dated 25.8.2007 and obtained registration of his vehicle from the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore (Central). In the Registration Certificate his address is shown as M/s.Mahima Silk Sarees, 12/2/Saibaba Market, O.K. Road, Bangalore which is his cloth business shop.2. It appears that he also had a branch, of his cloth business, at Puttaparthy, Andhra Pradesh. He, admittedly, regularly visits Puttaparthy for his business. On 16.4.2010 when he was proceeding to Puttaparthy in his car from the workshop at Anantapur, the second respondent checked the vehicle and also his cell phone numbers. In the Vehicle Check Report (VCR), the second respondent alleged that, on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner w...
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 : AIR1981AP232
Seetharama Reddy, J. 1. This review raises the question of rate of interest to be awarded on the amount of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act vis-a-vis the lands acquired for the Central Government in the year 1963. The material particulars, in brief, may be sequenced. 2. The lands of the petitioners were acquired for the Central Government, inter alia, towards the construction of Railway Staff Quarters; and possession of the lands was taken over on 6-12-1963, 12-1-1964 and 15-6-1965. Interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum was awarded on the compensation amount; and the same was eventually confirmed by this Court in the appeal, which is now sought to be reviewed. 3. The grounds briefly are: An honest mistake was committed by the Counsel in not bringing to the notice of the Court, paragraph 21 of Schedule IV of Part III of the Land Acquisition Manual, which provides for interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum in cases of acquisition of land for the purposes of the Ce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP160
Ananthanarayana Ayyar, J.1. The Writ Petitioner filed this petition praying this Court to call for the records and issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other direction or order directing the respondent-Vijayawada Municipality to forbear from collecting profession tax separately from the petitioner-company in pursuance of assessment No. 7689-A dated 19-7-1962.2. The petitioner, Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Private Limited, is a Transport Company with its Head Office at Kakinada and various branches at in several towns. In particular, it has got one branch at Rajahmundry and two branches within the limits of Vijayawada Municipality.3. The Writ Petition originally came up for hearing before Manohar Pershad, J. (as he then was) who referred it to a Bench. The case then came up before a Division Bench consisting of one of as (H. A A. J.) and Narasimham J. That Division Bench considered an unreported decision of an earlier Division Bench of this Court in Mahalakshmi Butter Co. v. Nagalanka Village ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978AP106
Chinnappa Reddy, J. 1. In 1961, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature passed the Andhra Pradesh (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1961. The Act proved ineffective and did not serve the purpose for which it was designed. So, in 1973, with much flourish and fanfare, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature passed the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1 of 1973, claimed to be more effective than its predecessor. The Act was preceded by Act 13 of 1972 and earlier by an Ordinance dated 2-5-1972 banning alienation of agricultural land. Though Act 1 of 1973 was passed with much attendant publicity on 1-1-1973, it came into force only on 1-1-1975, the date notified by the State Government under S. 1 (3) of the Act. Very soon the constitutional validity of the Act was impeached on several grounds. A Full Bench of this Court upheld the validity of the Act in M. Venkata Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, : AIR1975AP315 . Despite the fact that the judgment of this Court was ren...
Tag this Judgment!