Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Pyda Subbaramayya Chetty Vs. the Premier Bank of India Ltd., Branch Ne ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1959AP96
Bhimasankaram, J. 1. This appeal is by the 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 240 of 1950 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore. That was a suit instituted by the 1st respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,234-10-8 from the appellant and two others. The suit was decreed both against the 1st and 2nd defendants and dismissed against the 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant has not filed any appeal nor is there any appeal filed by the plaintiff seeking relief against the 3rd defendant.2. Before we consider the arguments, it is necessary to state a few facts and give a resume of the pleadings. The plaintiff is a Bank with its Head Office at Madras and a branch office at Nellore. Apart from conducting other kinds of banking business, it runs what are known as chit fund transactions. Every person who subscribes to such a fund pays for a fixed number of months a monthly subscription whereof the amount varies according to what is fixed as the prize amount. Once every month there will be an auc...
Mahant Narayana Dossjee Varu Vs. the Board of Trustees, the Tirumalai ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1959AP64
K. Subba Rao, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of two final decrees made by the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, on ascertaining mesne profits in O.S. Nos. 51 and 52 of 1957.2. The Tirumalai-Tirupati Devasthanams filed the said suits against Hathiramjee Mutt, the first to, recover possession of ten items of property situated at Tirupathi and Tirumalai and the other to recover one item of property at Tirumalai. The Tirumalai-Tirupathi Devasthanams are ancient Hindu temples looked upon with great reverence and worshipped by the Hindus living in different parts of the country.In 1843, the then Government of the country, which was till then managing the said temples through its agents, handed over their management to one Sevadoss, who was then the Mithant and head of the Hathiramjee Mutt at Tirupathi. Since that year, the temples had been under the management of Sevadoss and his successors till 1900 when the defendant succeeded as Mahant and took over its management.In 1933. Madras Act XIX o...
In Re: Mukhesh Ramachandra Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ343
Subba Rao, C.J.1. The appellants are the accused in Sessions Case No. 12/8/56 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. They were convicted under Section 395, IPC and accused 1 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and the rest to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 500/- each.2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case is as follows: The accused, along with three others, committed dacoity in the house of Billa kanti Lingayya of Bondalapalli en the intervening night of 1st and 2nd March 1956 between 11 P. M. and 12 mid-night. That day, the said Lingayya had gone to some other village and the women-folk of the house had gone to see some dramatic performance.During their absence, after inflicting injuries on the inmates, they took away cash, currency notes, gold and silver ornaments and other articles worth about Rs. 50,000/-. The learned Sessions Judge, after carefully considering the evidence, held that the accused committed, dacoity in the ho...
B.S. Dewan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ148
ORDERKumarayya, J.1. Cri. M. P. No. 343/1957 is an application for expunging certain remarks derogatory to the petitioner in the judgment of the Special Magistrate, Hyderabad in Case NO. 51/2/i 1953-54. This case was brought against Rama chandra Reddy for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468, Penal code.2. The brief facts are: that Mohammad Azizuddin, Md. Shamsuddin and Khurshid Ali Khan (Ex. Taluqdar) had surrendered their 12 bore guns in obedience to the general order of the Military Governor passed in the year 1947 in the police stations at Falaknama, Mirchowk and Chadarghat. All these guns were sent to Retlaburj dumping house. In the year 1951, applications were made for their release. For the purpose of this proceeding, we are concerned only) with the applications relating to the guns of Azizudidin and Shamsuddin bearing Nos. 3519V and 9547 respectively.It appears on 28-11-1951 applications bearing signatures of the said owners were submitted to the Collector for the release f...
Boggaram Srirama Murty Vs. Kandala Veeraraghava Charulu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ124
ORDERSatyanarayana Raju, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of. a writ of prohibition restraining the Village Panchayat Court, Chithapuram, from proceeding with the trial of C.C. No. 3 of 1954 on its file.2. The petitioner is a resident of the area comprised within the Panchayat limits of Chithapuram village in the Vinukonda Taluk of the Guntur District. On 21-5-1954, he was served with summons in C.C. No. 3 of 1954 to appear before the Village Panchayat Court. It is averred by the petitioner that there was no notification under Section 76 of the Madras Village Courts Act, 1888, empowering the Pancha-yat Court to exercise criminal jurisdiction and it is therefore submitted by him that the Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of C.C. No. 3 of 1954.3. As there was some controversy with regard to the fact as to whether there was a notification under Section 76 of the Madras Village Courts Act, vesting the Panchayat Court with jur...
In Re: Y. Balaram
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ125
ORDERManohar Pershad, J.1. This is a revision on behalf of the accused against the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gudivada, dismissing his appeal and confirming the order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Gudivada, dated 4-8-1955, holding the accused guilty under Section 4(1) (j) of the Madras Prohibition Act X of 1937 and sentencing him under Section 245, Criminal Procedure Code, to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six weeks.2. The brief facts are that the Station Officer, Gudivada, filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for an offence under Section 4(1) (j) of the Madras Prohibition Act X of 1937, alleging that on 13-5-1955 at about 10-30 p.m., he was found on a public high road near Gowri Shankar Cinema Hall in a state of drunkenness. He was sent to the Government Medical Officer who issued a certificate of drunkenness. The accused denied the offence and stated that the Circle Inspector and the Sub-Inspector of Pol...
Kuwar QamruddIn Khan Chauhan Vs. Zaibunnissa Begum
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1293
ORDERSrinivasachari, J.1. This is a reference that has been made by the District Magistrate, Hyderabad City, setting aside the order of the trial Court, viz., the First City Magistrate, Division No. 1, in proceedings under Section 488, Criminal P.C. It would appear that one Zaibunissa Begum filed an application for the grant of maintenance and after notice the husband did not appear and, therefore, he was set ex parte.The case was posted for trial on 6-6-1955. But, at the request of the Advocates, that is to say, the Advocate for the wife and the Advocate for husband who later appeared, the hearing was advanced and on that day the husband filed an application stating that he was agreeable to paying Rs. 450/-quarterly as maintenance. This order was taken up in revision before the District Magistrate, and the District Magistrate has rightly held that the wording of Section 488, Criminal P. C, does not warrant an order to that effect.The maximum amount that could be awarded as maintenance...
Secunderabad Club Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Hyderabad State (Now ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-1957
Reported in: [1957]8STC850(AP)
ORDERP. Satyanarayana Raju1. In these four applications, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Secunderabad Club, represented by its Secretary, seeks to challenge the legality of the levy of sales tax on the supply of refreshments, etc., to the members of the Club.2. On the total amount of the bills in respect of the refreshments, wines, spirits, etc., supplied by the Club to its members, the Government have been charging sales tax under the provisions of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, objection was taken on behalf of the Club that the supply of refreshments, etc., by the Club to its members, did not constitute sale and that therefore the Government had no jurisdiction or power to levy such tax.3. In two of the above applications, the Club seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Commissioner of Sales Tax and in the other two applications, it seeks the issue of a writ...
In Re: S. Narayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ127
ORDERManohar Pershad, J.1. The Station House Officer, Arundelpet, filed two charge-sheets against S, Narayana of Arundelpet, for keeping a gaming house, punishable under Section 8 of the Madras Gaming Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and another under Section 9 of the Act against S. Narayana and nine others for playing cards with stakes in the gaming house owned by S. Narayana. Of the ten accused charged under Section 9 of the Act five pleaded guilty. The case against those that admitted the guilt was separated and they were found guilty on their admission and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15 each and in default, five days' S.I. Out of the other five accused,, i.e., the present petitioners, two pleaded that they were not in the house at all and the remaining three pleaded not guilty. The two cases under Section 8 and Section 9 of the Act were tried together. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. On the evidence produced the 1st Class Be...
In Re: Kotta Narayan and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-12-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1288
ORDERSrinivasachari, J.1. These are applications for the grant of bail on behalf of three accused persons who have been committed to the Sessions by the Magistrate of Siddipet. As against twelve persons charges were laid Under Sections 148, 149, 324, 325 and 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I. P, C After they were produced before the Magistrate the prosecution examined two witnesses. The Medical Officer's evidence was recorded and after examining the accused the Magistrate committed the case to Sessions to take their trial under the above sections.Before the Sessions Judge an application for the grant of bail was filed on behalf of the accused who were committed to the sessions. The argument advanced in support of the application for bail was that according to Section 207(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate ought to have insisted upon the prosecution examining all eye-witnesses and the committal order made on the evidence of only two witnesses who were examined was not acco...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »