Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Grandhi Chakraiah Vs. Grandhi Pitchaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP105
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. Both the Second Appeal and the C.R.P. raise the same question bearing on the interpretation of Section 44 of the Indian Stamp Act. When the matter came up before Justice Umamaheswaram for final hearing, he thought that an important question of law was involved in it and should therefore be decided by a Bench.2. The material facts giving rise to the appeal and the C.R.P. are within a short compass and may be stated as follows :In a suit for dissolution of partnership, the plaintiff relied on an instrument which was not stamped. The trial Court impounded the document before it was admitted in evidence and had the necessary stamp duty and penalty collected. Ultimately, the suit ended in a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The unsuccessful defendant carried the matter in appeal, While the appeal was pending the Appeal Examiner issued a check-slip to the effect that the document fell under Article 39 of the 1st schedule to the Stamp Act and the duty and penalty sho...
Chemicals Ltd. Nidadavole Represented by K. Kondaiah Director Vs. Regi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP664
ORDER1. This application for the issue of a writ of certiorari or Mandamus, as the case may be, raises the question whether the Assistant Registrar of Joint stock Companies had exercised his jurisdiction properly in impounding the document land adjudicating the stamp duty thereon. The petitioner entered into an agreement on 21-3-1954 with Raka Corporation Ltd., Madras, a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act 1913, agreeing to appoint the latter as its sales agent and sole distributors on certain terms, which it is unnecessary for the purposes of this writ to consider.Pursuant to Sections 109 and 277 of the Companies Act, the particulars of the intending charge which the agreement created were furnished to the Assistant Registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District. The agreement dated 21-5-1954 was also sent to him as per his direction. The Assistant Registrar required particulars of She transactions and in reply to his reference dated 6-7-1954, the applicant sub...
Edara Venkaiah and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR24(AP)
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This writ petition seeks to have the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, passed in revision under section 33A of the Income-tax Act, quashed and prays for suitable directions that the amounts of Rs. 8, 449 for 1947-48 and Rs. 15, 667 for 1948-49 be refunded or otherwise adjusted The petitioner is the proprietor of Messrs. Rama & Co., a firm of printers and publishers having its head office at Eluru and branch offices at Guntur, Rajahmundry and Bhimavaram. He was assessed for the year 1947-48 on the 20th March, 1951, on a taxable income of Rs. 29, 061 and for 1948-49 on the 23rd November, 1951, on a taxable income of Rs. 34, 425. Against both these assessments he filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Bezwada, and they were disposed of on June 26, 1953, and June 28, 1953, respectively. In the appeal pertaining to 1947-48 the total income was reduced by Rs. 8, 887 and with respect to 1948-49 the total income was reduced by Rs. 1...
Konkati Narayana and ors. Vs. Balakanti Veerayya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP27; 1959CriLJ21
ORDERBasi Reddi, J. 1. This is a petition to revise the order of the First Class Magistrate, Gadwal, overruling the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the accused-petitioners that the complaint filed against them for an alleged offence of mischief punishable under Section 427, I.P.C., cannot be taken cognizance by the Court except with the previous sanction of the State Government, as provided by Section 197, Cr. P. C.2. One, Balakanti Veerayya, filed a complaint before the First Class Magistrate, Gadwal, against the 12 petitioners alleging that he had constructed a flight of stairs in front of his house leading up to the terrace after obtaining the requisite permission from the Panchayat of Maldakal village, that the petitioners who were opposed to him, with the bad intention of causing loss and damage to him, and taking advantage of the absence of the inmates of the house, had, on the morning of 17-9-1957, demolished the stairs and thereby caused him a loss of Rs. 100/-, and t...
The Union of India (Uoi), Owning South Eastern Railways by their Gener ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP17
ORDERMunikanniah, J.1. The plaintiff in the Small Cause suit is the transferee by endorsement for value of the Railway Invoice No. 10 dated 10-9-1953 whereunder 225 bags of peas were despatched for transit from Arrah to Kakinada port. He claimed against the Union of India, owning the Southern and Eastern Railways, a sum of Rs. 562/- as damages towards the value of the stock drenched and became unfit for human consumption. The Railway Doctor, after examining the stock, certified that only 30 per cent. of 30 bags were damaged and became unfit for human consumption.The plaintiff, therefore, confined his claim for compensation to the said 30 per cent, of 30 bags at Rs. 25/- per maund. The defendant pleaded that the goods arrived at Kakinada port on 27-9-1953, but the plaintiff took delivery only on 2-11-1953, while the plaintiff was bound to take delivery of the goods within the free time allowed without demurrage and wharfage, that the plaintiff caused undue delay and that as the goods go...
Yenduri Radhakrishnamurthy and ors. Vs. G. Mahalatchayya and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP50; 1959CriLJ26
ORDERSanjeeva Rao Naidu, J. 1. This is a revision petition preferred against the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Krishna, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 24 of 1956 by which he directed as follows:'The implied order of dismissal is set aside and the case is transferred to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate Vijayawada Taluk for fresh inquiry and disposal according to law. The petition is allowed.'2. In this case, the complainant filed a com-plaint making various allegations therein under Sections 323, 325, 447 and 34, I. P. C. In that complaint there is an allegation that the first blow which the 2nd accused dealt on the left cheek of the complainant resulted in one of her teeth dropping down. This allegation 'prima facie' implies that the tooth dropped down having been dislodged out of its position-under the impact of the blow given.Since there is an allegation of dislocation of the tooth on account of the violence employed or criminal force used, the allegation would 'prima ...
Taj Glass Works Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Government of Hyderabad (Now Govt. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP435; (1958)IILLJ568AP
ORDERJaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of a certiorari to quash the notice No. B-5 1183/92/55 dated 14-3-1956 issued by the Collector, Hyderabad District as also to set aside the attachment of the applicant's property made pursuant thereto as being ultra vires and illegal. The petitioner is a public limited company owning a Glass Factory. The 5th respondent in this case is an employee of the factory till he was discharged on 16-12-1954, according to the petitioner, for negligence and continued inefficiency.Immediately after he was discharged on 20-12-1954, he received a sum of Rs. 78-6-0 for 16 days in December, 1954 and 15 days' notice pay in full and final settlement of his account. The next day after he received this money viz., on 21-11-1954 he filed a petition before the Labour Officer, Medak, complaining that he was summarily discharged without being given an opportunity to explain his position and that in spite of 8 1/2 years service, the mana...
R. Narasimha Reddy and anr. Vs. Bhoomaji and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP111
Seshachalapathi, J. 1. These are two connected appeals filed under Section 116(a) of the Representation of the People Act, as amended by Act XXVII of 1956, hereafter called the Act against the decision of the Election Tribunal (District and Sessions Judge) Secunderabad in election petition No. 374 of 1957 on its file declaring the election of the legislative assembly of Andhra Pra-desh void.2. The appellant, Sri R. Narasimha Reddy and Sri J.B. Muthyala Rao, appellants in Special Appeals Nos. 3 and 4 of 1958 respectively, the 1st respondent Sri Bhoomaji and five others stood as candidates for election to the Legislative Assembly, Andhra Pradesh from Gajwel double-member constituency in of about January 1957. The nominations were duly filed by all these candidates before the last date fixed, i.e., 29-1-1957 and they were duly scrutinized on 1-2-1957. The date for the polling was fixed to 4-3-1957 and the election took place on that day. The result of the poll was as follows Candidate : -...
Bhupathiraju Suryanarayanaraju Vs. Bantupalli Appanna and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP645
ORDERKumarayya, J.1. Two suits in relation to which the present revision petitions are filed, are money suits on the foot of a promissory note brought by the plaintiff before the learned District Munsif on small cause side. The defendants admitted the execution of the pronotes, but denied that they were supported by consideration and contended that they were mere fictitious transactions. When the case was called on for hearing, the defendants made up their mind to abide by the oath of the plaintiff and requested the Court to call upon the plaintiff to take special oath. The plaintiff was not prepared to take the same and consequently the petition of the defendants was dismissed.Then the defendants applied for the summoning of the plaintiff as a witness on their behalf. This petition was made under Section 32 and Order 16 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. It was stated therein, that even if the plaintiff says in open court without entering into the witness-box that the suit amounts were du...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›