Andhra Pradesh Court December 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.
Hendricks and Sons Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ235AP
1. This is an application on behalf of the management of Hendricks & Sons, Secunderabad, for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution and praying that the award of the industrial tribunal in Case No. 5 of 1956 before the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, be quashed. There was a reference by the Government of Hyderabad referring an industrial dispute between the workmen of Hendricks & Sons (hereinafter referred to as the concern) and the management thereof and the reference was as to whether the dismissal of one Papiah, one of the workmen in the concern, was justifiable; if not, to what relief he was entitled. The management of the concern issued a show-cause notice to Papiah on 27 January 1956 stating that he was entrusted with a Hindustan car with direct instructions to dismantle the timing-case and head; on inspection at 5-15 p.m. It was found that he had dismantled many unnecessary parts which had no connexion with the job entrusted to him. It was further s...
K.V. Seshavataram Vs. State of Hyderabad (Now Andhra Pradesh)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP251; (1959)IILLJ277AP
M.A. Ansari, J.1. The appeal is against the judgment by a learned Judge of this Court, dismissing a petition to vacate the order by the Government of the former State of Hyderabad, whereby the appellant had been compulsorily retired from the State service.2. In 1923 the appellant was appointed an Overseer on probation in the Public Works Depart ment and in 1944 was promoted as a Superviser. In 1949 he was a Sub-Engineer and in 1954 was allowed to cross the efficiency bar with retrospective effect from October, 1, 1952. It is alleged that in May, 1952 two contractors had sent a petition to the P.W.D. authorities accusing the appellant of taking bribe and of partiality.A departmental enquiry was then conducted, but the Chief Engineer had found the aforesaid charges not to have been established. While the above matter was pending, reports had appeared in the newspaper that the property acquired by the petitioner was not commensurate with the appellant's income, whereupon he was directed t...
Secretary to Govt. Public Works and Transport Department, Andhra Prade ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP538
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. All these writ appeals raise common questions of law and so they could be heard and disposed of together in one judgment.2. These appeals arise out of a judgment of our learned brother, Satyanarayana Raju J., quashing the Government Orders issued in exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Madras Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act, Madras Act 29 of 1949, as amended by the Madras Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Andhra Amendment Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act).3. The Government of Madras and its successor the Government of Andhra State were having a single power grid system for ihe whole State comprising Tungabhadra and Machkund Hydro Electric Systems and the Thermal Systems of Nellore. The entire energy was integrated into one power system. The Government entered into agreements with the several consumers in the State including the respondents for the supply of energy in bulk at speci...
Narasimhan (K.V.) Vs. Chicacole Co-operative Central Bank Limited
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ554AP
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order, dated 26 December 1950 of the President, Co-operative Central Bank, Ltd., Srikakulam, dispensing with the services of the petitioner.2. The petitioner was originally appointed as supervisor in the Ganjam District Co-operative Union Bank, Berhampur, on 6 January 1936 and, after the formation of the Orissa Province in 1936, he was transferred as supervisor under the Chicacole Co-operative Central Bank, Srikakulam. Subsequently, his services were lent by the bank to the Uddanam Co-operative Marketing Society, Ltd., Kandivali, and he was appointed as manager of the said society on 13 September 1946. While working there, he was arrested on 6 June 1950 in connexion with charges of misappropriation and breach of trust alleged to have been committed by him as manager of the society. The next day, he was suspended by the society until further orders on the ground that he was arrested and released ...
Sri Rekapalli Virabhadrudu and ors. Vs. R. Suryanarayanamurthy and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1960AP636
Munikanniah, J. 1. This appeal is against the dismissal of the suit filed by the sons of the 1st defendant for partition of the family properties by the Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram. 2. The 1st defendant instituted an application O. P. No. 25 of 1951, for guardianship of the minor plaintiffs and for the custody of the 1st plaintiff in the suit and the eldest daughter Subbalakshmi. The court of the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram allowed this application and against this C. M. A. No. 659 of 1953 has been filed. But as the 1st plaintili has attained majority and the daughter Subbalakshmi is now in the custody of the 1st defendant, the C. M. A. has been dismissed as withdrawn. We are therefore here concerned only with the appeal against the judgment and decree in the suit. 3. A few facts which are undisputed may firstbe set out. The plaintiffs who were minors on thedate of the suit are the sons of the 1st defendant byhis first wife Satyavati. The first defendant marriedSatyavathi in 1932...
In Re: Thathineni Subba Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1958
Reported in: [1959]10STC187(AP)
Sanjeeva Rao Nayudu1. The point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the act of the accused in snatching away the account books from the hands of P.W. 1, who is not one of the Commercial Inspectors empowered to inspect the accounts of dealers and in using force to P.W. 1 in so snatching away or in preventing P.W. 1 from forcibly taking back the books from him, amounts to an offence 2. The facts out of which the prosecution in this case has arisen are as follows : The accused is an employee in Basavamba Rice and Oil Mills. One of the clerks of the mills had a gunny bag under his legs which contained some account books at the time of the offence in question, that is, on 22nd December, 1956, at about 12-30 P.M. P.W. 1 is a Commercial Inspector on general duty whilst P.W. 2 claims to be a Commercial Inspector on special duty and claims to have been empowered under the notification of the Government dated 18th May, 1956, in G.O. No. Ms. 377 Finance (C.T.) as amended and...
Thathineni Subba Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1958
Reported in: AIR1960AP110
ORDERSanjeeva Row Nayudu, J.1. The point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the act of the accused in snatching away the account-books from the hands of P. W. 1, who is rot one of the Commercial Inspectors empowered to inspect the accounts of dealers and in using force to P. W. 1 in so snatching away or in preventing P. W. 1 from forcibly taking back the books from him, amounts to an offence?2. The facts out of which the prosecution in this case has arisen are as follows: The accused is an employee in Basavamba Rice and Oil Mills. One of the clerks of the mill had a gunny bag under his legs which contained some account books at the time of the offence in question, that is, on 22-12-56 at about 12-30 p.m. P. W. 1 is a Commercial Inspector on general duty whilst P. W. 2 claims to be Commercial Inspector on special duty and claims to have been empowered under the notification of the Government dated 18th May 1956 in G. O. No. Ms. 377 Finance (C.T.) as amended and pu...
Krishna Murty (K.) Vs. State of Andhra
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ558AP
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. In this writ petition the legality of the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner is assailed.2. The petitioner was appointed sub-inspector of excise on 23 April 1928 by the Commissioner of Excise. He was promoted as Assistant Commercial-tax Officer in December 1941 and he was reverted as aub-inspector in April 1945. In or about the year 1946, he was transferred to the Prohibition Department as sub-inspector by the Board of Revenue and was confirmed in that office on 10 November 1951. He seems to have been guilty of several irregularities and laches which led to the framing of six charges in 1952. The charges were communicated to the petitioner and he was directed to submit his written statement within one month from the date of the receipt of the memorandum of charges. The memorandum of charges was sent by registered post and it was received on 29 December 1952 by the petitioner's son, who acknowledged receipt. No written statement was filed as directed in tha...
K. Krishna Murthy Vs. State of Andhra (Now Andhra Pradesh) Represented ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1960AP29
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. In this Writ Petition the legality of the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner is assailed.2. The petitioner was appointed Sub-Inspector of Excise on 23-4-1928 by the Commissioner of Excise. He was promoted as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in December 1941 and he was reverted as Sub-Inspector in April 1945. In or about the year 1946, he was transferred to the Prohibition Department as Sub-Inspector by the Board of Revenue and was confirmed in that office on 10th November, 1951. He seems to have been guilty of several irregularities and laches which led to the framing of six charges in 1952. The charges were communicated to the petitioner and he was directed to submit his written statement within one month from the date of the receipt of the memo of charges.The memo of charges was sent by registered post and it was received on 29-12-1952 by the petitioner's son, who acknowledged receipt. No written statement was filed as directed in that memo within the...
Batchu Subba Rao and Co. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, East Godavari ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1960AP196; [1959]10STC394(AP)
Kumarayya, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari is directed against the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Kakinada East Godavari, passed in Appeal No. 267/51-52 whereby he confirmed the order of assessment dated 17-11-1951 made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kakinada in A-2-18/1951-52. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the year 1950-51 on a gross turnover of sales of Rs. 21,23,630-1-4. This consists of various items, but we are concerned with two items of (i) Rupees 4,85,877-6-3 and (ii) Rs. 1,10,630-1-4. The first of these relates to the sales by the petitioners firm to the merchants outside Madras State and the second to sales through commission agents. Though the levy of sales tax on both these items was called in question before the Commercial Tax Officer and also in this Writ Petition, learned counsel confined his argument to the first item alone obviously because, on the fact; found, no objec...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »