Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 128 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Nallamilli Rami Reddi & Ors on 29 August, 2001

G. Subrahmanyam Naidu vs The Commissioner Of Endowments And Anr. on 4 April, 2003

18. When a statutory authority is acting in accordance with law, no mandamus can be issued declaring such action invalid. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Nallamilli Rami Reddy (supra), it is a matter for the authorities to consider whether or not a person in occupation of the land is entitled to the benefit under Section 82 (2) of the Endowment Act. Indeed, the petitioner, in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, in A.T.C. No. 1 of 1990, in O.A. No. 3 of 2000 before the Deputy Commissioner, and in O.S. No. 43 of 2002 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, and even in his latest application dated 3-9-2002, admits that he is not in possession of Acs.3.79 cents. The impugned notification was issued prescribing the land as wet land, in which event the petitioner would not fall within the definition of landless poor person as per explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 82 of the Endowment Act. The contention of the respondents that it is a wet land is not specifically denied in any of the pleadings. However, across the Bar, an effort is made to show that it is a dry land and not wet land and in the alternative, it was submitted that most of the land has been encroached by others and the petitioner is in possession of the land admeasuring less than Acs.2.50 cents. Going by the pleadings of the petitioner before various courts and various authorities including his latest representation dated 3-9-2002, prima facie, it must be held that the petitioner is in possession of land admeasuring Acs.3.79 cents in Sy. Nos. 247/4, 247/6 and 248/2 of Govindapalem in Puttur town which is a wet land. He is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit under Section 82(1) of the Endowment Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman, ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 1 May, 2007

As held in State of A.P. and Ors. v. Nallamilli Rami Reddy and Ors. , if there is equality and uniformity in each group, the law will not become discriminatory, though due to some fortuitous circumstance arising out of peculiar situation, some included in a class get an advantage over others so long as they are not singled out for special treatment. The Supreme Court pointed out that the differentia required in substance is that it must be real and substantial bearing some just and reasonable relation to the object of the legislation.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 125 - Cited by 2 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Cairn India Holding Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ( ... on 25 June, 2019

Companies in whose case the income tax payable on the total income as computed under the normal provisions of the Act in respect of the previous year relevant to the assessment year is less than 10% of their book profits. The provision does not intend to make any classification between a capital asset infrastructure company and a capital intensive company with no capital assets. If, as a consequence of implementing the provisions of the section, some companies are put to some hardship, it does not mean that the legislature has created a distinct class of companies. As held by the Apex Court in State of A.P. v. Nallamilli Ramli Reddi (supra), a classification would be justified unless it is patently arbitrary. If there is equality and uniformity in each group, the law will not become discriminatory; though due to some fortuitous circumstance arising out of peculiar situation some included in a class get an advantage over others so long as they are not singled out for special treatment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Moparthi Koteswara Rao And Ors. vs District Collector-Guntur And Anr. on 27 December, 2004

6. The petitioners, admittedly, are not the owners of the land in question. The land in question admittedly belongs to the Temple. The petitioners are merely cultivating tenants of the land in question, having taken the same on lease from the Temple. The right of the petitioners over the land in question, if any, is to the extent of their tenancy rights, which they got under the tenancy agreement. The tenancy in respect of the land, if any, subsists only between the petitioners and the Temple. It is not known whether the Temple, which is the owner of the land, which is under cultivation of the petitioners, has any objection to the acquisition. The tenancy between the petitioners and the Temple, in respect of the land, admittedly has no statutory force, and tenancy having no statutory force, cannot come in the way of the land acquisition proceedings, which are initiated under the Act, which is a special enactment, enacted for acquisition of land needed for public purposes. Though the petitioners contend that they being tenants of the Temple, are entitled to be extended the benefits of Section 82 of the Endowments Act, it is required to notice that the Apex Court in State of A.P. and Ors. v. Nallamilli Rami Reddy and Ors., , had held that the tenancy laws would not be applicable in relation to lands belonging to a Charitable or an Endowment Institution. Therefore, the petitioners being merely tenants of the Temple, cannot seek to enforce their tenancy over the land, which is under their cultivation, and which admittedly belongs to the Temple, which is a Charitable Institution, and more so when it is sought to be acquired by the first respondent, for a public purpose, namely providing house sites to weaker sections of the society.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N V Ramana - Full Document

M/S Nath Brothers Exim International ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 21 April, 2017

A proviso is therefore meant to limit the scope of the general enactment and thus any proviso which does that cannot be held to be invalid as long as the objective of the general provision is not frustrated. Going by this case, it is safe to say that the fourth proviso to Section 10B (1) is a qualifying proviso W.P.(C)12073/2015 Page 17 of 19 and it only seeks to limit the general provision in Section 10B (1) with a further stipulation or condition. As held in State of A.P. v. Nallamilli Ramli Reddi, (2001) 7 SCC 708, Article 14 of the Constitution of India permits reasonable classification on fulfillment of two factors: (a) that the classification must be found on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together from others who are left out of the group, and (b) that differentia must have a reasonable connection with the object sought to be achieved. As discussed earlier, the objective behind insertion of the impugned provisions was to defeat multiple claims of deductions and to ensure better tax compliance. Thus, the impugned provisions (fourth proviso to Section 10B (1) and Section 80A (5)) so inserted acknowledge the existence of persons owning 100% EOUs and seek to limit their time to claim deductions under the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 5 - S R Bhat - Full Document

G. Subramanyam Naidu vs Commissioner Of Endowments And Ors. on 4 April, 2003

17. When a statutory authority is acting in accordance with law, no mandamus can be issued declaring such action invalid. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Nallamilli Rami Reddy (supra), it is a matter for the authorities to consider whether or not a person in occupation of the land is entitled to the benefit under Section 82(2) of the Endowment Act. Indeed, the petitioner, in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, in A.T.C. No. 1 of 1990, in O.A. No. 3 of 2000 before the Deputy Commissioner, and in O.S. No. 43 of 2002 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, and even in his latest application dated 3-9-2002, admits that he is not in possession of Acs.3.79 cents. The impugned notification was issued prescribing the land as wet land, in which event the petitioner would not fall within the definition of landless poor person as per explanation to Sub-section (2) of Section 82 of the Endowment Act. The contention of the respondents that it is a wet land is not specifically denied in any of the pleadings. However, across the Bar, an effort is made to show that it is a dry land and not wet land and in the alternative, it was submitted that most of the land has been encroached by others and the petitioner is in possession of the land admeasuring less than Acs.2.50 cents. Going by the pleadings of the petitioner before various courts and various authorities including his latest representation dated 3-9-2002, prima facie, it must be held that the petitioner is in possession of land admeasuring Acs.3.79 cents in Sy.Nos.247/4, 247/6 and 248/2 of Govindapalem in Puttur town which is a wet land. He is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit under Section 82(1) of the Endowment Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hemlal Sahu vs Union Of India on 19 May, 2021

In State of A.P. v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi25, this Court had further elucidated that a challenge on the ground of denial of equal treatment will not sustain when the legislature intends to classify persons under a well-defined class. A classification need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete and would be justified unless it is palpably arbitrary. The test to judge the validity of any classification has to be practical and pragmatic by looking beyond the classification to the purpose of the law, that is, the purpose or object of the legislation and the circumstances which had prevailed when the law was passed and which had necessitated passing of that law. Not only this, there is a presumption as to constitutional validity of an enactment predicated on the belief that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people and is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restriction to only those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest. The hardship that may result from the classification cannot be the basis for determining the validity of any statute. This requires distinguishing between under-inclusiveness and over-inclusiveness. The former classification does not confer the same benefit or place the same burden on others who are similarly situated whereas over-inclusiveness includes not only those who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose but others who are not so situated as well.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - P P Sahu - Full Document

Cairn vs Union on 21 October, 2010

companies in whose case the income tax payable on the total income as computed under the normal provisions of the Act in respect of the previous year relevant to the assessment year is less than 10% of their book profits. The provision does not intend to make any classification between a capital asset infrastructure company and a capital intensive company with no capital assets. If, as a consequence of implementing the provisions of the section, some companies are put to some hardship, it does not mean that the legislature has created a distinct class of companies. As held by the Apex Court in State of A.P. v. Nallamilli Ramli Reddi (supra), a classification would be justified unless it is patently arbitrary. If there is equality and uniformity in each group, the law will not become discriminatory; though due to some fortuitous circumstance arising out of peculiar situation some included in a class get an advantage over others so long as they are not singled out for special treatment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oruganti Jeethaiah And Another, vs Rev. Dept., Rep. By Prl. Sec. And 2 Ors, on 23 February, 2024

The said judgment of this Court has been set aside by the judgment of the Supreme Court in an appeal by the State in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nallamilli Rami Reddy (2001) 7 SCC 708 upholding the legality and validity of Section 82 of the Endowments Act. By virtue of the aforesaid Ordinance and the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, all the leases between parties in these petitions came to an end on the date of commencement of the Endowments Act and thereafter there is no landlord and tenancy relationship between the institution and the cultivator. A Division Bench of this Court in WP No.28714 of 198, dated 19-2-2002 also held that the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 have no application to the Endowments Act in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred supra. Therefore, the proceedings before the authorities under the Tenancy Act are not maintainable and the proceedings initiated either by the Institution or by the cultivator are nonest in law".
Telangana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.K.Bisen (Chandra Kumar Bisen) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2024

In State of A.P. v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi25, this Court had further elucidated that a challenge on the ground of denial of equal treatment will not sustain when the legislature intends to classify persons under a well-defined class. A classification need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete and would be justified unless it is palpably arbitrary. The test to judge the validity of any classification has to be practical and pragmatic by looking beyond the classification to the purpose of the law, that is, the purpose or object of the legislation and the circumstances which had prevailed when the law was passed and which had necessitated passing of that law. Not only this, there is a presumption as to constitutional validity of an enactment predicated on the belief that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people and is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restriction to only those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest. The hardship that may result Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 05-03-2024 11:01:25 22 from the classification cannot be the basis for determining the validity of any statute. This requires distinguishing between under-inclusiveness and over-inclusiveness. The former classification does not confer the same benefit or place the same burden on others who are similarly situated whereas over-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next