Andhra Pradesh Court December 1955 Judgments
Cement Marketing Co. Vs. A.V.R. Krishnamurthy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-1955
Reported in: [1956]7STC762(AP)
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus and or prohibition, as the case may be, for quashing the orders of the Sales Tax Authorities dated 18th January, 1955, 16th March, 1955, and 26th May, 1955, and the notices of demand dated 28th January, 1955, 18th February, 1955, 16th March, 1955, an 1 26th May, 1955, issued by the first respondent, Sales Tax Officer, 8th Circle, Secunderabad and to prohibit the said respondent, his servants and agents from enforcing or taking any proceedings in enforcing the said orders of assessment and notices and to direct the said first, respondent from continuing to levy assessment and issuing notice of demand month by month. The petitioners contend that they are the sales managers of Associated Cement Companies Ltd., that by virtue of an agreement dated 4th June, 1942, made between the Associated Cement Companies of the first part, the Patiala Cement Companies Ltd., of the second part, the Rohtas Industries...
Tag this Judgment!Dattu Pant Vs. Advya Chari and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ998
Srinivasachari, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate order against the respondents invoking our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts that have been set out by the petitioner are that he was charged under Section 409, I.P.C. and convicted. On appeal the Sessions Judge quashed the conviction of the petitioner and acquitted him for want of sanction.Subsequently the prosecution after obtaining the necessary sanction filed a second charge sheet on the same facts. The petitioner submitted before the trial Court that the second prosecution was barred under Section 403, Cr.P.C. and the trial Court held that inasmuch as no sanction had been produced at the time when the previous trial commenced there was nothing to bar a second prosecution. The trial of the case, therefore, proceeded.2. The contention of the petitioner before us is that the second prosecution was illegal under Article 20(2) of the Constitut...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Hanumantha Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ930
Umamaheswaram, J.1. I have perused the judgment of my learned brother and I agree with his conclusion. I am satisfied on the evidence on record that the appellant administered about one grain or more of sodium nitrite poison. But, as the prosecution has not established, beyond doubt, that the lethal dose was administered the benefit of doubt must be given to him I agree that the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 328, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.2. I do not think that it is necessary for me to decide in this case as to how far the discovery of a witness is a discovery of fact within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In Palaniendi Velan v. Emperor 1934 Mad WN 601 (A), a Division Bench of the Madras High Court took the view that the discovery of a witness to the crime or act of the accused, on his information would not be a discovery of a fact within the meaning of the section. In King Emp...
Tag this Judgment!Kanumarlapudi Lakshminaryana Chetty and Others Vs. First Additional In ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR419(AP)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered bySUBBA RAO, C.J. - This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the First Additional Income-tax Officer, Nellore, dated March 20, 1954, and March 31, 1954. The assessees are members of Hindu undivided family. On March 18, 1948, the Income-tax Officer, Nellore, assessed them to income-tax for the assessment year 1947-48. In doing so, he had taken into consideration a sum of Rs. 6,000 as the share of the income of the joint family from the firm of C. P. V. Kotaiah Chetty and Co., Madras (Chillies Department). In due course, the assessees paid the Income-tax assessed on them. The assessment on the firm of Messrs. C. P. V. Kotaiah and Co., was completed only on July 31, 1951. By reasons of that asssessment the share of the profits of the assessees family for 1947-48 was found to be Rs. 21,659 instead of Rs. 6,000 which was the sum included in the assessment of the joint...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K. Appalaswamy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1227
Chandra Reddy, J.1. These appeals are filed by accused 1 to 3 separately. They have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Visakhapatnam under Section 395, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 each. Accused 1, i. e., the appellant In Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1955, has also been convicted under Section 323, Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. Seven persons were tried by the Sessions Judge on these two counts but the Sessions Judge thought that no case was made out against accused 4 to 7 and acquitted them.2. The short facts of the prosecution case are these; P. W. 1, belonging to Eantwvada of Tekkali taluk, Visakhapatnam, District purchased six acres of land in another village Bantukothuru from one Karimi Kurmayyaswami in 1951, After cultivating it for two years, he leased it out to 1953 to P. Ws. 3 and 4 under Exhibit P-10, the terms of which are not quite pertinent here. The tenants rais...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›