Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Motilal Hari Prasad and Bros. and ors. Vs. the State of Andhra
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1958
Reported in: [1959]10STC20(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. The assessee is a dealer in groundnut oil. He purchases groundnut and groundnut kernel and converts them into oil for purposes of sale. In the assessment year 1953-54, he was taxed on Rs. 3,96,772, representing the value of the groundnut kernel purchased by him. This turnover was assessed at the purchase point. The levy was confirmed by the Tribunal. In this revision petition, the assesses attacks the validity of the tax on the ground that groundnut kernel does not fall within the ambit of Rule 4(2)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939.2. The concerned rules are as follows:--4(1) Save as provided in Sub-rule (2) the gross turnover of a dealer for the purposes of these rules shall be the amount for which goods are sold by him.(2) In the case of the undermentioned goods, the gross turnover of a. dealer for the purposes of these rules shall be the amount for which the goods are bought by him.(a) groundnut,(b) cashew, cotton (inclu...
Chintapalli Lakshmaiah Vs. Collector of Krishna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1960AP104
Satyanarayana Raju, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the District Collector, Krishna in D. Dis. No. A-2-17048/58 dated 27th September, 3954.2. The facts which have given rise to this petition may be briefly stated. One Bethapudi Satyanandam was the village munsif of Nandigamalanka, in the Kaikalur Taluk of the Krishna District. On 29th July 1938, he was dismissed from service with a bar order that, 'no undivided member of his family should be appointed to the post during his life-time. In the year 1944, the petitioner was appointed to act as the village munsif of Nandigamalanka. On 21st November 1951, Satyanandam died. On 22nd January 1952, the widow of Satyanandam applied to 'the Tahsildar, Kaikalur Taluk requesting that her minor son Kotaiah, then aged 13 years, might 'be registered as the office-holder.The Tahsildar transmitted this request to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, who by an...
Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India Private Limited Vs. State o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ8AP
ORDER1. This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, dated 21 February 1957. One Papaiah Naidu, who was employed under the petitioner, was dismissed for attempting to steal one dealwood box contain 15 yards of hessian cloth. The workers of the Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India (Private), Ltd., Vijayawada, took up his cause, and the conciliation proceedings having failed, reference was made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the industrial tribunal to decide whether Papaiah Naidu was properly dismissed. The tribunal held that the dismissal was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice inasmuch as he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, upon whose evidence the management acted. As against the award of the industrial tribunal, the writ petition is filed before this Court.2. Sri Rajarama Ayar, the learned advocate for the petitioner, contended that:(1) there was n...
Kalbarga Nagaiah and ors. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP225; [1959]10STC378(AP)
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. These petitions raise common questions of law and could, therefore, be disposed of together. They are filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State of Andhra Pradesh to refrain from imposing or collecting any tax under the provisions of the Hyderabad Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Regulation, (XXIV of 135S-F). The petitioners are dealers in motor spirit, diesel oil, etc., and have banks situated either in the city of Hyderabad or other places in the State of Andhra Pradesh.They complain that the respondent has been levying and collecting sales-tax on the sales of petrol, purporting to exercise the powers conferred on them under the above mentioned Regulation and are threatening to cancel the licences in the event of failure of the petitioners to comply with the demands of the Sales-tax Department, though such an impost is illegal and ultra vires the powers of the State Government.2. In these petitions, the consti...
Manyamma Vs. Municipal Commissioner, Hyderabad and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP271
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. In this matter, the competence of the legislature to prescribe a court-fee of Rs. 100/- in regard to writ petitions is questioned by Mr. Chobe. It is urged by him that this law is not in conformity with the Constitution in that it violates Article 229 and Article 14 of the Constitution. Aside this, this subject is not also within the sphere of the State Legislatures which could only enact laws In regard to administration of justice and so the power conferred on the State Legislature should be confined to making of laws which are only subservient to administration of justice.2. These contentions are devoid of substance. We Are unable to see how Articles 229 and 14 of the Constitution are infringed by the State Legislature in enacting laws prescribing a particular court-fee. Reliance is placed on paragraph 3 of Article 229 which lays down that the'administrative expenses of a High Court Including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the ...
Samineni Bhadrayya Vs. Sandi Chinna Subbaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP279
1. The problem posed here is whether the process fee payable for service of notice on the respondent is the one governed by the rules framed by the erstwhile Hyderabad High Court or those of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. So far as the case on hand is concerned, it does not present any difficulty for the reason that the appeal itself was filed after 1-11-1956 i.e., a few days after the Appellate Side Rules were promulgated by virtue of the powers conferred by the enactments mentioned in Schedule I thereto and all other powers thereunto enabling. 1t was admitted on 7-12-1956 and steps were taken to serve the sole respondent on 8-7-1958. In such a situation, this apppeal as well as all proceedings arising therefrom are governed only by the appellate Side made after 1-11-1958.2. But the vital question is whether these rules would apply to appeals filed before the formation of the Andnra Pradesh High Court and during the existence of the erstwhile Hyderabad High Court. It is argued, by the...
Nori Venkata Rama Dikshitulu and ors. Vs. Ravi Venkatappayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1960AP35
Ansari, J.The question arising for decision in these two appeals is whether S. No. 333 of Vatticheruku village had been dedicated for raising Dharma Vanam or (sic) for public benefit. The appellant in one of the aforesaid appeals is one out ot the four plaintiffs to a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and en-joyment of part of the said property. In the Other the appellants are defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 7 to a claim under Section 92 of the C. P. C. for removing them from the office of trustees, for appointing new trustees and vesting the property in them. The land (sic) measures Acs. 8.28 cents and originally belong-ed one Nori Lakshmipathi Somayajulu, who was an ancestor of the appellants.In 1788 he had dedicated the property to charity and the exact nature of this endowment is now in dispute. There is no written document showing how the property had been gifted; but Ex. B-1, an extract from the Inam Register of 1868, descri...
A. Janikiraman Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP185
Basi Reddy, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution complaining of the infringement of the petitioner's fundamental right to employment, guaranteed by Art. 16 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner was born in Kalinjur village, Gudiattam Taluk, North Arcot District. He was educated at Vellore and later underwent the compounders course and became a qualified compounder in 1952. As there was a vacancy for a compounder's post in the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor, the petitioner applied for it on 4-5-1953 and. after interview, he was appointed temporarily to act as compounder with effect from 14-5-1953.3. On 1-10-1953 the State of Andhra was formed and the petitioner was retained in the service of the Andhra State, and he continued to serve as compounder in the said Hospital. On 2-2-1955 the petitioner received a communication from the District Medical Officer and Superintendent, Government Headquarters Hospital, Chittoor, whereby his services abrupt...
Sri Ramachandra Spinning Mills Vs. Its Workmen (Pandalapaka Labour Uni ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ244AP
1. In regard to the question of jurisdiction, the petitioner relies on S.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947) which runs thus :'During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings or proceedings before a tribunal in respect of any industrial dispute, no employer shall -(a) alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or(b) discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workman concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the conciliation officer, board, or tribunal, as the case may be.'2. His argument is that the High Court is a 'tribunal' in regard to labour disputes. But that expression has been defined in S.2(r) of the Industrial Disputes Act as an industrial tribunal constituted under S.7A of the Act. The High Court is not a tribunal contemplated under S.33 of the Act and the petition is not maintainable. The...
Sirisetti Mallayya Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP7
ORDERUmamaheswaram, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (T) Department in Memorandum No. 103544-T-57-4 dated 7-1-1958. The case of the petitioner is that he was an abkari contractor and that his properties were brought to sale by the Tahsildar, Parkal on 13-3-1957 for the recovery of the excise arrears of a sum of Rs. 19009-13-0 without giving a proper notice of sale and without issuing '30 days proclamation and proper publication'. Thereupon he filed an application before the Board of Revenue to set aside the sale. He did not implead the auction purchaser, the 2nd respondent herein, as a party to is application. The Board of Revenue passed an order on 25-7-1957 setting aside the sale.The Board observed that the mandatory provisions of Sections 130 and 135 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Art (VIII of 1317 F) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' had not been observed and that consequently, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »