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.
Nukala Venkatesu Vs. Nanduri Suryanarayana and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP16
P. Chandba Reddy, Offg. C.J.1. This civil revision petition raises an important question of procedure, namely, the scope of Order XX Rule 2, C.P.C., and that is why it has been referred to a Bench by our learned brother, Satyanarayana Raju, J.2. The point that falls to be decided in this revision petition is, whether a succeeding Judge has option to try a suit de novo or whether it is obligatory on him to pronounce the judgment prepared hut not pronounced by his predecessor.3. It is urged or behalf of the petitioner that Order 20, Rule 2, C.P.C. which recites that 'A Judge may pronounce a judgment written but not pronounced by his predecessor' casts a duty on the succeeding Judge to pronounce the judgment prepared by his predecessor and that he has no opinion in the matter. The position taken by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the succeeding Judge has an absolute discretion in the matter and he is not bound to pronounce the judgment written by the predecessor.In support...
Chalapati Veeranna and ors. Vs. Chalapati Venkatachalam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP170
P. Chandra Reddy, Offg. C.J.1. This matter was referred to a Bench as in the opinion of the referring Judge (Justice Qamar Hasan) there was a conflict of authorities on the point whether a court can appoint a Commissioner without notice to the other side, The relevant provision of the Code of Civil Procedure is Order 26 Order 9 which recites:'In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to he requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a Commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court. *** ***' It is urged by the Revision Petitioner that the court is bound to issue a notice before a commission is issued having regard to the provisions of Order 18 of the same Order. That rule provides;'(1) Where a commission is issued under this Order,...
Bondeladinne Venkata Subba Reddi and ors. Vs. Janaki Gangamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP171
Umamaheswaram, J.1. This appeal comes on before us by reason of a reference made by our learned brother Manohar Pershad, J.2. Defendants 1 to 3 and 6 are the appellants. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein for recovery of possession of the B schedule properties and mesne profits, past and future. Her case was that the properties belonged to her mother Janaki Busamma, and that on her death, they devolved upon her and her sister Nagamma, and that for the sake of beneficial enjoyment, they partitioned the B Schedule properties and some other properties and that in that partition, the B schedule properties fell to the share of Nagamma. She claimed that on the death of Nagamma in the first week of June, 1950, she was entitled to recover those properties from the defendants who are in possession, thereof.3. Defendants 4 and 5, in possession of items 6 to 8, did not contest the suit. Defendants 1 to 3, in possession of items 1 to 5 pleaded in their written statement that Nagamma h...
Akella Suryanarayanamurty Vs. Akella Ayappa Sastry
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1960AP146
Basi Reddy, J.1. The short question that arises in this Revision Petition is whether Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act is applicable to the facts of this case. The plaintiff is the petitioner and his son, the defendant, is the respondent. By a 'Kararnama' (Ex. A-15) dated 14-3-1948 father and son effected a partition of their properties and as part of the arrangement the father agreed to transfer to the son 50 shares in the Godavari Sugars and Refineries Ltd., of the value of Rs. 5,000/-.The shares stood in the name of the father, and half the value of the shares had been paid up and the other half remained unpaid. It was agreed that the necessary steps for the transfer of the shares had to be taken by the father while the necessary expenses had to be borne by the son. However, for a period of four years, for one reason or another, the transfer was not effected and the shares continued to stand in the name of the father.2. The Godavari Sugars and Refineries Ltd. went into liquidati...
Sajjanam Wadla China Rajayya Vs. Chappal Venkateshwar Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP349
Syed Qamar Hasan, J. 1. C. M. As. Nos. 79/3 and 80/3 of 1955 are respectively filed by the defendant against the judgment and order dated 28-10-1953 of the District Judge, Adilabad, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Chinnoor holding the suits to be beyond time and remanding the same for disposal on the merits. S. A. No. 167/1 of 1956 is preferred by the plaintiff impugning the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation. As the question to be determined is common, this judgment will govern all the three appeals.2. The facts are that the plaintiff instituted, in the first instance O. S. No. 102 of 1952-53 on 18-3-1952, against the appellants in C. M. As. Nos. 79 and 80 of 1955 and the respondent in S. A. No. 167/1 of J956 and another defendant, who is out of picture now, for recovery of Rs. 579-9-8 being the principal and interest due on four bonds severally executed by the defendants on 13-1-1950 to pay their proportionate share of an erstwhile joint debt, the promise to pa...
State of Madras (Now Andhra Pradesh) Represented by District Collector ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP352
Srinivasachari, J.1. Identical questions are involved in these batches of appeals and so they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment.2. The claim in all those cases is for the refund of amounts collected by the Government from the rice millers in the Districts of East Godavari. West Godavari and Krishna, who were licensees under the Food Procurement Order, authorised to procure rice and paddy from, the producers to sell them in the market at prices fixed by the Government. The difference between the prices at which they were purchased and the prices at which they were directed to be sold was asked to be made over to the Government.The various millers made over the difference in compliance with the order of the Government and later on filed suits for the recovery of those amounts on the ground that they alone were entitled to the difference in the price and the Government was not entitled to recover the same from them.These transactions relate to a period when imme...
Hotha Sitarama Sastry Being Minor by Mother and Guardian Hotha Kameshw ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP359
Kumarayya, J.1. These are two separate petitions for leave to appeal to Supreme Court under Sections 109 and 110, C. P. C., and Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution of India. They are directed against the final orders passed in W. A. Nos. 149 and 150 of 1957 whereby the contentions of the petitioners that Regulation IV of 1951 made by the Governor of Madras purporting to act under Section 5(2) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution was ultra vires the powers of the Governor and is a colourable legislation and that the notification issued by the Government of Madras thereafter under Section 1(4) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, XXVI of 1948 fixing a particular date for taking over the estates of Gangolu A and C estates is invalid and liable to be quashed, have been discountenanced and the order passed in W. P. Nos. 28 and 29 of 1953 has been upheld.The main plea advanced by the petitioners is that inasmuch as both the above contentions raise sub...
Lummus Company (India) Limited Vs. Inspector of Factories and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ298AP
1. This is an application, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Inspector of Factories, Visakhapatnam, and the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Andhra. The following brief statement of facts will be useful for determining the points raised in this writ petition : The Caltex Oil Refining (India), Ltd., acquired a site of the extent of about 380 acres in Malkapuram, near Visakhapatnam, and engaged the petitioner-company to carry on the construction works designed to install, erect and construct an oil refinery. The Caltex Oil Refining (India), Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal company'), has made an application to the Chief Inspector of Factories for permission to construct, extend or take into use the said site under S. 6(1) of the Factories Act in form No. 1 together with the prescribed plans. It is stated that the said application is still pending orders before the Chief Inspector. The plans filed by the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›