Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

GULLAPALLI NAGESWARA RAO AND OTHERS versus ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

Decided
5 November 1958
Judges listed
SUDHI RANJAN DAS (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 319 · 1958 INSC 94
Also cited as
  • AIR 1959 SC 308 (60 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 7 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

In view of the opinion of the majority the order approving the scheme is hereby quashed and a direction issued to the 'first respondent to forbear from taking over any of the routes in which the petitioners are engaged in transport business. This will not preclude the State Government from making the necessary enquiry in regard to the objections filed by the petitioners in accordance with law. The petitioners will have liberty to file additional objections, if any. The parties to bear their own costs.

p. 394, margin D

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

p. 394, margin D

v.

p. 394, margin D

S. TEJA SINGH (T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR

p. 394, margin D

and A. K. SARKAR, JJ.)

p. 394, margin D

I ncome-tax-P enalty-N assessee-F ailure to send estimate of tax-Absence of notice assessee-Competency of Income-tax Officer to levy penalty-Indian Income-tax Act, r922 (XI of r922), ss. r8A(3), r8A(9), 22, 23, 28.

p. 394, margin D

The respondent who had not been assessed to income-tax prior to the assessment year 1948-49 made suo motu returns on July 4, 1949, showing an income of Rs. 4,494 and Rs. 31,646 respectively, for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50, but failed to send an estimate of the tax on his income as provided in s. 18A(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Incometax Officer took action under s. 28 read withs. l8A(9) of the Act and imposed a penalty on him for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50.

p. 394, margin D