Andhra Pradesh Court December 1957 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gangadharabhatla Satyanarayana Vs. Mudi Narayanaswamy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1959AP28; 1959CriLJ23
K. Subba Rao, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of our learned brother, Bhimasankaram, J. dismissing the. application filed by the appellant for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the Additional First Glass Magistrate, Kakinada, from proceeding with C. C. No. 297 of 1956 on his file.2. The facts are clearly and succinctly stated by our learned brother, Bhimasankaram J. in his order. They are :3. The appellant is the accused in C. C. No. 297 of 1956 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. He was elected as a member of the village panchayat of Yeleswaram, East Goda-vari District, at a general election which took place on 23-6-1956. He was appointed by the District Panchayat Officer, Kakinada, by an order dated 30-6-1956 to act as the temporary President of the meeting of all the members so elected for the purpose of co-opting a woman member as prescribed by Section 10-A of the Madras Village Panchayats Act (Act X of 1950). The meeting was hel...
Vankamamidi Balakrishnamurthi Vs. Gogineni Sambayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1959AP186
K. Subba Rao, C.J. 1. I have had the advantage of perusing the instructive judgment prepared by my learned brother, Ranganadham Chetty J. I do not propose to express my view on the interpretation of the second paragraph of Section 10 of the Limitation Act. I would rather prefer to base my conclusion on the provisions of Article 120 of the Limitation Act. 2. The facts relevant to appreciate the question raised may be briefly stated. The Endowments Board framed a scheme in the year 1927 for the management of the temple of Malleswaraswami situated in Balijepalli Agraharam of Guntur District. Under the scheme, three non-hereditary trustees were appointed. Prior to the scheme, three persons, claiming to be hereditary trustees, were in possession of the properties belonging to the temple. After the scheme, two of them surrendered possession but one Balakrishniah set up the claims that he prescribed for the right of trusteeship by adverse possession and that he was entitled to continue in man...
In Re: K. Munirattnam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ724
ORDERBasi Reddy, J.1. This is a petition to revise the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Chattier, confirming the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 12 of the Madras Gaming Act (Act III of 1930).2. The facts of the case are as follows:On 27-2-1956 at about 8-30 p. m., while the petitioner was travelling in a bus going to Tirupati, the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 1), acting on information, stopped the bus at a rice mill near Renigunta and searched the person of the petitioner. In his pocket was found a notebook containing entries about cotton market betting and in a cloth bag which he had with him, were found coins and notes of the value of Rs. 107-10-0 with 32 numbers of cotton market betting carbon counter-slips. All these were seized by P.W. 1 under a 'mahazar.On these facts the petitioner was prosecuted for an offence under Section 12 of the Madras Gaming Act, and the Second Class Bench Magistrate, Tirupati, convicted the petitioner, sentenced him...
The Hind Mercantile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Miryala Venkateswarlu and Co. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1959AP545
Srinivasachari, J.1. This is an appeal and a memorandum of cross-objections before this Court against the judgment of the Subordinate judge, Guntur. The brief facts relating to this case are that the plaintiffs firm carrying on business in groundnut oil entered into two contracts with the firm of the 1st defendant by its partners, defendants Nos. 2 to 4. The first contract was for the supply of 120 drums of groundnut oil at Rs. 16-4-0 per maund of 25 Ibs. for ready delivery on the Guntur Railway Platform, the payment being made against delivery.The other contract was for the supply of 60 drums of the same oil for delivery likewise at Guntur Railway platform. These contracts were entered into and signed in the broker's office at Guntur and attested by the broker. The plaintiff alleged that according to the trade usage obtaining in contracts relating to groundnut oil, the seller, if he were outside Guntur, had to take empty drums from the buyer at his expense, fill them with oil and brin...
Kakarla Subbayya and ors. Vs. Makkena Sitaramamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1959AP86
Ranganadham Chetty, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent filed1 by defendants 1 to 5 against the judgment of Mr. Justice Viswanatha Sastry dated 1-7-1955 in A. S. No. 475 of 1950 reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla and decreeing the suit with costs.2. The suit properties are the lands and house sites described in Schedules A, B, C and D annexed in the plaint. Plaintiff, Makkena Sitaramamma, asks for two alternative reliefs:1. 1/3 share in A and B schedules after partitioning and 1/2 share in D schedule; or 2. The whole of C schedule with mesne profits of Rs. 300 and 1/2 of D schedule. The admitted and indisputable facts of the case are; The Makkena family and the Kakarla family of Thakkellapadu, Ongole Taluk are related to each other. There have been marriage alliances between the two families for a long time. Plaintiff, Sitaramamma, is the widow of Makkena Kotiah who died in or about 1938. Kotiah's divided brother is Seshaiah (6th defendant) and the ...
Chunduru Subba Rao Vs. Chunduru Subba Rao and Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ739
Satyanarayana Raju, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the above second appeal which arises out of a judgment of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Guntur, reversing a decree and judgment of the District Munsiff's Court. The respondent is the State of Andhra, represented by the District Collector, Guntur.2. For a proper appreciation of the contentions raised in the appeal, it is necessary to state the material facts. The plaintiff is the proprietor of Chundury Subba Rao and Co. at Guntur. Oil the 18th June. 1948, he purchased ten bags of Semolina from M S Moosa Salt, Madras, for a sum of Rs, 115O-5-0 and transported the same to Guntur by lorry. As the plaintiff cduld not &i;$ pose of the semolina at Guatur, he got It refcrans-ported to Madras by rail.He entrusted the railway receipt to his agents, Messrs. K. V. Seshaiah Chetty and Co. at Madras, and requested them to take delivery of the goods, The ten bags were delivered to Seshaiah Chetty and Co. It was reported to the Collector of...
Uppala Nookaiah Chetty Vs. Additional Income Tax Officer
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-1957
Reported in: [1959]35ITR483(AP)
Kumarayya, J.1. These are three petitions made by Uppala Nookayya Chetty, Uppala Satyanarayanamurthy and Uppala Peda Venkataramayya respectively of the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Additional Income-tax Officer dated March 30, 1955, March 30, 1955, and March 31, 1955, whereby the individual assessments made on March 31, 1952, under section 23(3) were revised in exercise of his pores under section 35 of the Income-tax Act.2. The Petitioners are admittedly partners in Messrs. Uppala Peda Venkataramanayya and Sons, Oil Mills, Anakapalli, and have each 1/4th share therein in the profits and losses. In response to the notice issued under section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act the Petitioners submitted their individual returns on August 31, 1951, declaring their income and including therein a provisional sum representing their share of income from the aforesaid firm. As the firm's assessment was not completed by that time, each of the Petitioners expressed in writing...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Mohammad Murthuza Hussain
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ854
Basi Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal by the State Government) against an appellate order of acquittal passed, by the learned Sessions Judge, Nellore, setting aside the conviction of the respondent for an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act for the contravention of R, 3 and Rule 5 (3) of the Madras Factories Rules framed under Section 6 of the Factories Act.2. The case for the prosecution is as follows:The respondent is the occupier-cum-manager of the Stove Beedi Factory at Nellora. He has constructed a factory at Padugupadu without the prior approval of the plans, dy the Chief Inspector of Factories as required by Rule 3, and he has carried on a manufacturing process in the factory without obtaining a licence as required by R, 5 (3). The Assistant Inspector of Labour, Nellore Circle, visited the building belonging to the respondent at Padugupadu on 20-4-1955 at about 12-30 P. M. He found 24 persons working in the building.They were rolling 'beedies'. The Assistant Inspector of ...
Majety Balakrishna Rao Vs. Mooke Devassy Ouseph and Sons
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1959AP30
Umamaheswaram, J.1. This is an appeal brought by the plaintiff as against the judgment and decree at the District Judge of West Godavari at Eluru dismissing his suit for recovery of damages for breach, of a contract dated 29th September 1950. According to the plaintiff, the defendant gave an order for a wagon load of black gingelly by a telegram dated 29-9-1959 and that the price was fixed at Rs. 84-3-0 per bag of 164 Lbs. F. O. R, Eluru.The plaintiff, who accepted the order, on the same day applied to the M. and S. M. Railway for a wagon and a railway wagon was allotted on 15th October. The goods, viz., 251 bags of gingelly were loaded in the wagon on the same day. The railway receipt was obtained in the name of the plaintiff and endorsed to the Central Bank, Eluru. He also drew a hundi for the amount of the price on the defendant and delivered it to the Bank.After the plaintiff sent a telegram intimating the dispatch of the goods, the defendant by an ante-dated postcard informed the ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›