Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
Konda Sesha Reddy and ors. Vs. Muthyala China Pullaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1958
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1123
ORDERRanganadham Chetty, J.1. This is a petition by the accused for revising the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore dated 15-6-1956 made on Criminal Revision Petition No. 10 of 1956. The, facts of the case, in brief, are, China Fullalah1; claiming to be a lessee of certain lands from one Ramachandraiah, minor represented by his mother, Kasamma, filed a complaint charging the 37 accused with offences punishable Under Sections 379, 143 and 447, I, P.C.He alleged that he took possession of the land from the aforesaid Kasamma and raised a Ragi crop in the beginning of December 1955. He was tending the crop with water taken from the well and the crop was in fact, ripe for being cut in four days' time when all the accused unlawfully entered on the land, and cut and carried away the crop.2. The Sub-Magistrate, Kanigiri, took a sworn statement from the complainant and dismissed the complaint as relating t6 a dispute of a civil nature. The complainant preferred a revis...
G.M. Chenna Basappa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP368; [1958]34ITR576(AP)
P. Chandra Reddy Offg. C.J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, this court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question for its opinion. -'Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in sustaining both the additions of Rs. 14,222/- as deficit yield and Rs. 35,4007- as cash credits and whether they do not amount to double taxation?' 2. The facts relevant to this question may be 'shortly stated:The return submitted by the assessee, who is a dealer in the manufacture and sale of ground-nut-kernel and cake at Adoni disclosed a gross profit of Rs. 5,118/- on a turnover of Rs. 3,67,000/- the purchases of ground-nut alone amounting to Rs. 2,41,213/- and the purchase of kernels being of the value of Rs. 1,07,4487-. There were no vouchers to support these transactions. The assessee decorticated ground-nuts and obtained kernel. The resultant kernel together with the kernel purchased was crushed by means of expeller...
Mallikar Junappa Kalyanshetti Vs. Rudrasetti Sangasetti Patil Mahagamk ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP305
1. In O. S. 59/1 of 1953-54 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Secunderabad, Mallikarjunappa laid a claim for recovery of O. S. Rs. 12,657/- on foot of three documents dated 8-8-1950, which according to the plaintiff were hundies. Amongst others, one of the defences raised was that the suit documents were promissory notes payable otherwise than on demand that inasmuch as they were not duly stamped, they were inadmissible in evidence on which no suit could lie. Of the seven issues adjusted in the case, [he first issue was :'Are the suit documents promissory notes? Arc they inadmissible in evidence?This issue- was taken up for decision on 4th October, 1954 and the Subordinate Judge gave the finding that the suit documents were promissory notes and being insufficiently stamped were admissible to the extent of half of the amount claimed. The defendants felt dissatisfied with the. order and they filed a review application on 3-11-1954 praying that the said documents be held to be altoget...
Padarthy Ratnam and Company Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ290AP
ORDER1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Guntur, in Industrial Dispute No. 6 of 1956. The facts which have given rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner is a private company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act and has been carrying on tobacco business for a number of years at Guntur, under the name and style of Padarthy Ratnam & Co. On 4 May 1956, the Government of Andhra made the following notification :-'Whereas an industrial dispute has arisen between the workers and the management of the Padarthy Ratnam & Co., Guntur, in respect of matter mentioned in the annexure to this order : And whereas in the opinion of the Governor of Andhra it is necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), the Governor of Andhra hereby directs t...
Kotharaju Narayana Rao Vs. Tekumalla Ramachandra Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP370
Krishna Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant and arises out of a suit brought by the respondent-plaintiff to recover from him a sum of Rs. 13,600/- being the principal and interest due 011 a promissory note Ex. A-l dated 30-7-1949- The promissory note was executed by him in favour of one Sri G. Ch, Venkatachalam and was endorsed by the latter on 27-7-1953 to the plaintiff for collection. The main dispute between the parties relates to the truth of the consideration for the instrument.2. The facts necessary to appreciate the dispute are briefly as follows: The defendant as the manager of his joint family owns a site measuring Ac. 1-98 cents at Guntur. It was being leased out on a rent of Rs. 2,000/- per year to the I.L.T.D., Company Ltd., (hereinafter called the 'Company'). They were occupying it as lessees continuously since 1926. It was a strip of land situated between two plots owned by them. So they desired to purchase the site from the defendant. Negotiations were carried o...
Pulipati Subbarao and Co. Vs. Appellate Asstt. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP505; [1959]35ITR673(AP)
ORDERSatyanarayana Raju, J. 1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the Income-Tax Officer, Vijayawada, from making a de novo assessment. 2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in this petition, it is necessary to state the material facts. The petitioner is a firm consisting of five partners and carrying on commission and other kinds of business at Vijayawada. It was previously assessed in the status of a registered firm. For this assessment year 1952-53, the Income-tax Officer, Vijayawada, assessed the petitioner on the 28th June, 1953, and determined its loss in a sum of Rs. 100980/-. In making the assessment the officer treated the petitioner as an unregistered firm on the ground that it did not file an application for registration. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax who by his order dated the 17th September, 1954, set aside the assessment and directe...
Polisetti Subbaraidu and Co., Chirala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP166
Srinivasachari, J.1. The assessee is a firm engaged in business of dyeing, printing and selling cloth. The present reference arises out of the assessment for the year 1947-48. The assessee purchased mill cloth such as Koras and Mulls and handloom cloth and got them dyed and printed and sold them. The company also purchased dyes and chemicals, dyed them in their own 'Karkhana' by engaging coolies and sold the dyed cloth in the market. They also purchased dyed cloth in the market, got them printed and sold them. Besides these, the assessee firm bought and sold ready made dyed and printed cloth, besides selling mill and handloom cloth undyed and unprinted.2. A return for the account year 'Vyaya' ending with 22-3-1947 was submitted by the assessee which showed an income of Rs. 30,859/- from the business, Rs. 840/- from other sources. The assessee was called upon to produce his account books and he produced a Day Book and a ledger. In the statement enclosed to the return, a sum of Rs. 30,67...
Mohamed MinhajuddIn Vs. Ahmed Khan
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP168
SYED QAMAR HASAN, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on behalf of the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 31-3-1959 of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, vacating the ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from issuing and passing off his goods wider the name of Ruh-e-Tilismat.2. The judgment in this appeal has been reserved on the assurance of the advocates that the parties would reach a compromise to their mutual satisfaction. It now appears that contestants desire to have the dispute between them settled by a decree of the Court. The short question to be decided is whether the Court below was justified in vacating the interlocutory injunction given in favour of the appellant.3. The appellant is the plaintiff. He is admittedly the owner of a trade mark registered under the Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) under which he sells a medicinal preparation named as Zinda Tilismat. The respondent also prepares and puts in the market medicinal preparations under t...
Amritlal N. Shah Vs. Alla Annapurnamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP9
Umamaheswaram, J.1. This is an appeal brought by the defendant as against the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Guntur in O. S. No. 50 of 1950. The suit was instituted by the respondent herein for recovery of the arrears of rent and possession of the plaint scheduled property or in the alternative for payment of the balance of security deposit. Her case was that the plaint scheduled property was granted on lease to the appellant herein on 26-4-1947 and that the lease was for a period or five years. She filed an application under S. 7 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for eviction of the appellant herein. The application was dismissed on 2-4-1949.She thereupon preferred an appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Guntur in C. M. A. No. 60 of 1949, and the learned Judge held that the provisions of the Rent Control Act did not apply, and consequently dismissed the appeal. The suit was therefore filed both for...
Somireddi Burrayya and ors. Vs. Somireddi Atchayyamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP26
ORDER1. The question involved in the civil revision petition is whether a Court has jurisdiction to allow an amendment of the plaint schedule on the ground of mistake after preliminary decree is passed in a partition suit.2. It was directed to be posted before a Bench, as it was thought that the question was of sufficient importance involving one of procedure.3. The facts material for the appreciation of the contentions arising in this petition may be briefly stated. The respondent filed a suit for partition and separate possession of a one-third snare in the plaint schedule properties. A preliminary decree was passed on 27-10-1952, and a Commissioner was appointed to partition the properties and the Commissioner went to the spot for partitioning the properties. Obstruction was offered so far as one item of the property covered by S. No. 171 was concerned.The plaintiff thereafter filed a petition for substituting another item of property included in the S. Nos. 51/1, 52/2, 52/3 and 83 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »