Andhra Pradesh Court November 1958 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.
Gummadi Tatayya Chowdary Vs. State of Andhra and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ550AP
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Guntur District Co-operative Motor Transport Society for Ex-servicemen, Ltd., Guntur, retrenching the post of a manager, dated 4 October 1951. The abovesaid society was started to promote the economic interests of the members of the society and to find suitable and profitable employment for them by running motor transport service. The first board of directors was nominated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under by-law 19(c) of the by-law of the society. These directors appointed the petitioner as the manager on 30 December 1948 and he joined service on 6 January 1949. As the cost of running the society was mounting up, the board of directors decided to abolish some posts including that of the manager, as recommended by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in his Memorandum No. 6964 of 1950/B-1, dated 3 February 1951. The matter was examined at some length by on...
Suryadevarajya Rama Rao Vs. Superintendent of Post Offices, Krishna Di ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ245AP
Satyanarayana Raju, J.1. This is a petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Krishna Division, terminating the services of the petitioner.2. The petitioner was drafted to war service and after the termination of the war in 1946, he was discharged; subsequently, on 27 September 1948, he was appointed as a temporary clerk in the Krishna Postal Division. On 26 August 1955, be was informed by the Superintendent of Post Offices that his services would be terminated after a month from the date of receipt of the notice. It is the propriety of this order of termination that is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.3. Mr. Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised several contentions : firstly, that the petitioner has completed his probation and that the contention of the department that he is only a temporary clerk governed by the Central Civil Services (Temporary S...
Mohammad Bhudan Khan and ors. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderab ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP237; [1959]10STC263(AP)
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. These three petitions raise a common question of law and were, therefore, heard together. 2. The petitioners, who are dealers in petroleum products, have petrol hunks in different parts of the city of Hyderabad. They were called upon to register themselves as dealers among other things, as required by the provisions of the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation (Andhra Pradesh Extension and Amendment Act. 1958) Act V of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature and to which the assent of the Governor was obtained on 25-3-1958.This led them to file the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the provisions of the Act, questioning the validity of the said Act. The vires of the Act are challenged before us on the ground that it was not competent for the Andhra Pradesh legislature to amend the Madras Sales...
Appa Rao Patnaik K. Vs. State of Andhra and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1958
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ558AP
1. The Order of the Court was as follows : This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against the dismissal of the petitioner by an order of the District Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam, dated 25 March, 1953, as confirmed by the order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Northern Range, Waltair, on 12 June, 1953. The petitioner was working in the Police Department. At the material time, he was a head constable attached to Sarvakota police station Pathapatnam taluk of Srikakulam district. On 20 December, 1951, a requisition was sent to the petitioner who was then in charge of the police station in the absence of the sub-inspector of police by the medical officer in charge of the local fund dispensary at about 8 p.m. to be present at the dispensary for recording the dying declaration of a girl who was involved in a lorry accident. Thought he received the intimation, he neither attended the hospital nor made any arrangement to record the dying declaration. ...
Ravipudi Abbayya Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Collector, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1960AP134
Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, J. 1. Section A. No. 1172 of 1954 is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Baptla, in A. Section No. 90 of 1953 reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif of Bapatla in O. Section No. 309 of 1951. Section A. No. 1179 of 1954 is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bapatla in A. Section No. 91 of 1953 reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif of Bapatla in O. Section No. 313 of 1951. 2. The plaintiffs in both the suits are brothers. The 1st defendant in both the suits was the State of Madras. These two suits were brought for a declaration of the title of the respective plaintiffs in the suits and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' enjoyment and possession of the lands in each of the suits. Both the suits were tried together as common questions of law and fact were involved and were accordingly disposed of by a common judgment. The appeals again...
A. Kotaiah Naidu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP485
ORDERBasi Reddy, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the State of Andhra Pradesh, directing them to forbear from giving effect to G. O. Ms. No. 1617, Industries, dated 17th December, 1957, and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 2nd January, 1958. The impugned notification bears the title, 'Reservation of certain areas of Krishna District in Jaggayyapet Taluk, for public sector'. and reads as follows : --'In pursuance of the Industrial Policy Resolution of the Government of India, dated 30th, April, 1956, and with the prior approval of the Government of India, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, hereby declares that the areas, the details of which are given in Annexures I and II to this notification, are with immediate effect reserved for exclusive exploitation of the Stale Government.' Annexure I deals with the lands situated in the villages of Gandrayi, Takkellapad...
Ede China Gurunadham and ors. Vs. Palakurti Venkata Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP523
Satyanarayana Raju, J.1. Before we finally dispose of these appeals, it is necessary to get the authoritative decision of a Full Bench on a question on which there is divergence of judicial opinion.2. In Dakshinamurthi v. Sitharamayya, 1958-1 Andh WR 85, a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Umamaheswaram and Mohd. Ahmed Ansari, JJ., held that an alienee from an alienee of a specific item of property from an undivided member of a joint Hindu family, is entitled to work out the equity in a suit for partition and have the property allotted to the share of the alienating coparcener. The basis of this decision is that the right of an alienee to the equity is a right in personam and is heritable and transferable.3. A contrary view was taken in two Bench decisions of the Madras High Court, viz., Dhadha Sahib v. Muhammad Sultan Sahib, ILR 44 Mad 167: (AIR 1921 Mad 384) and Sabapathi Piliai v. Thandavaroya Odayar, ILR 43 Mad 309 : (AIR 1920 Mad 316). In ILR 44 Mad 167: (AIR 1921 Mad 38...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›