Andhra Pradesh Court November 1959 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.
Abdur Rahmani Bai Vs. Fatima Bee and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP492
ORDERMunikanniah, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the orders of the learned District Munsif of Kodangal rejecting an application purported to have been filed under Order XXI Rule 58 C, P. C. The respondents object to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the procedure that ought to have been adopted by the petitioner is that provided under Rule 63 of Order XXI and that a revision will not lie. This contention is sought to be met on behalf of the petitioner by pointing out that inasmuch as the petition has been rejected for non-compliance with Rule 180 of the Civil Rules of Practice and form 66, the further observations of the learned District Munsif are neither material nor necessary and the dismissal of the application could not be treated as one on merits. The relevant portion of the order of the learned District Munsif reads thus:'As the petition is not on the proper form and verification is also not written on this petition, is rejected. 'When an o...
K.M. Khudrathulla and Co. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-1959
Reported in: [1960]11STC595(AP)
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. Two questions arise in these tax revision cases, viz., (1) whether an assessee dealing in hides and skins, having applied for and obtained a licence and having paid the provisional fee of Rs. 25 under the Madras General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called 'the rules' and 'the Act' respectively), could long after the year of assessment refuse to pay the balance of the licence fee payable under the rules and insist on getting himself treated as an unlicensed dealer.; and (2) whether the purchases made by the assessee in the shandies; from sellers whose names and addresses were not disclosed can be treated as purchases from unlicensed dealers.2. The petitioner who is a resident of Vizianagaram is a dealer in raw hides and skins. In the assessment year 1953-54, i.e., during the period from 1st April, 1953, to 31st March, 1954, he applied for a provisional licence on 21st February, 1953, having paid a provisional licence fee of Rs. 25 and Rule 6(4) (a) and (c) of the ru...
The Employers of Daily News, Secunderabad Represented by Its Managing ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP556; [1960(1)FLR494]; (1960)ILLJ599AP
ORDERSeshachalapati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to and quash the Award dated 9-3-1959 passed in the Industrial Dispute No. 13 of 1958 on the file of the Labour Court, Hyderabad.2. The petitioner is the management of the Daily News, Secunderabad represented by the Managing Editor. The 1st respondent is the Daily News Press Workers' Union. The 1st respondent herein submitted to the Management a memorandum of grievances. The matter raised by the workers was referred to the Conciliation Officer who started work on 2-7-1958.On 1-7-1958, the Managing Editor suspended two employees, Satya Seela and Satyanarayana, the office boy and the Asst. Foreman respectively in the Daily News until further orders for removing certain important papers without the permission of the Management. The Conciliation proceedings failed. By G. O. No. 1995 Home (Labour) Department dated 22nd August, 1958, the Government of Andhra Pradesh re...
Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the General Manager, Eastern Rlys ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP495
Umamaheswaram, J.1. This is an appeal brought by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Eastern Railways, Calcutta and the Southern Railway, Madras, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Railway Administration') against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet, in O. Section No. 114 of 1952 decreeing a sum of Rs. 4293/ (being the value of 86 bundles of dry chillies not delivered to the plaintiff) with interest thereon at 6 p.c. from 10101952 till the date of realisation. The respondents herein consigned 214 bundles of chillies to Shalimar under R/R No. 55881. Only 126 bundles were delivered and a shortage certificate bearing No. 0241 for 86 bales was given by the Superintendent, Shalimar Goods-shed on 10101951. The respondents herein filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,000 on the ground that the shortage was due to wilful negligence or misconduct of the Railway Administration. The Railway Administration contended that the loss of 86 bales was due to a...
Munnaluri Venkateswarlu and anr. Vs. Vaddula Narasi Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1961AP71
Ansari, J.1. The reference has been made in a Letters Patent Appeal, against the order by our learned brother, Umamaheswaram, J., directing the lower appellate court to determine the merits of the appeal and the Memo of cross-objections filed in that Court.2. The suit out of which the aforesaid appeal and the cross-objections have arisen was for a mandatory and a permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have claimed that there was a donka between their fields, shown as 'A' and 'B' in the sketch attached to the plaint and that of the 1st defendant shown as 'C' in the sketch and that the rain water from the defendant's as well as other fields towards the north used to flow through the donka towards the south, the donka having been marked as 'D', 'D-1', 'D-2' and 'D-3' in the, plaint sketch map. The plaintiffs' case further is that the Highways Department had laid a road in the middle of the donka, having on either side of the road a channel for rain water to flow from the adjoining field.The...
Smt. Rajah Kishore Devigaru Vs. Bhaskara Gouta Chorani and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP286
Krishna Rao, J.1. These are respectively two petitions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the common judgment and separate decrees of this Court in Appeals Nos. 98 and 99 of 1953 and a third petition for the consolidation of these two petitions. They raise a question regarding the applicability of Section 110, Civil Procedure Code and of Article 133of the Constitution of India. As there is a conflict of judicial opinion on this question, the matter has been referred to a Full Bench.2. The material facts may be briefly stated. The petitioner, Kishori Devi, is the transferee of a money decree for a little over Rs. 10,000 passed against one Lakshminarayana Raju in Order Section No. 9 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam. In execution of the decree, she attached a number of immoveable properties in December, 1950 as belonging to the judgment-debtor. The respondents filed two applications for releasing the respective properties mentioned in the...
Chandu Veeraiah and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP329; 1960CriLJ791
Bhimasankaram, J.1. Criminal Revision Case No. 692 of 1958 is directed against an order passed by the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Repalle, in C. C, No. 1005 of 1958 upon a memo filed by the prosecution under Section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Criminal Revision Case No. 691 of 1958 challenges the correctness of an order of the same Magistrate in the same case passed on a later date on a petition of the accused presented under Sections 173(4) and 251A of the Code.2. There was a charge-sheet filed against the accused who were four in number under Sections 323 and 225, I.P.C., by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Cherukupalli. In the charge-sheet were set forth the names of 12 persons as persons acquainted with the circumstances of the case. During the trial, the prosecution filed a memorandum in which they stated that two witnesses may be summoned as 'additional witnesses' on their behalf because their examination was essential to the just decision of the case. One of them is a doct...
B.S. Mahadev Singh and anr. Vs. Nandgopaldass
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP423
Ansari, J. 1. The two appellants are the decree-holders whose application for execution of a decree under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed by the District Judge, Secunderabad. On 10-3-1943, the appellants bad filed in the then District Judge's Court, of Secunderabad, O. S. No. 8 of 1943 for the removal of the judgment-debtor-respondent from the office of the Mahanth of Narasingh Mandir, Secunderabad, for framing of a scheme and for rendition of accounts. The suit was decreed by the District Judge of Secunderabad on 17-9-1945, directing the Mahant to render accounts, to refund Rs. 2,500/- which sum he had misappropriated; and he dismissed the request for the removal of the Mahant. The decree was modified by the appellate authority on 18-11-1946 and it directed as follows: '1. That the defendant shall file an inventory within one month of all moveable and immoveable property belonging to the temple. 2. That the defendant shall account for all the amounts receive...
Haradevi Bai Vs. the Collector of Kurnool and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP525; [1960]38ITR589(AP)
ORDERSatyanarayana Raju, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus to (1) theCollector of Kurnool, (2) The Special Deputy Tah-sildar, Kurnool and (3) The Income-tax Officer, Kurnool, restraining them from proceeding to attach or to bring to sale the petitioner's properties for the realisation of the alleged income-tax arrears of her husband, Pamandas Suganram, and in particular, from proceeding with the sale of House No. 43/50, Narasingaraopet, Kurnool.2. For the recovery of arrears of income-tax due from the petitioner's husband, a certificate was issued by the Income-tax Officer, (the 3rd respondent herein) to the first respondent (the Collector of Kurnool) under Section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Pursuant to the certificate issued, the Collector proceeded to attach the aforesaid house for the realisation of the arrears. It is common ground that this house was purchased in the name of the pe...
Kalakota Varalakshmi and anr. Vs. Kalakota Veeraddi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1959
Reported in: AIR1961AP359
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The question raised in this reference is whether appeals from decrees passed under Sections 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (XXV of 1955) should be registered as civil miscellaneous appeals or first appeals.2. The practice in this court was to register them as civil miscellaneous appeals till a decision was rendered by Umamaheswaram J. in S. R. No. 6720 of 1959'. There, the learned Judge held that having regard to the language of these sections which describe the decision of the court as a decree, regular appeals lie from these adjudications and that it is not correct to register them as civil miscellaneous appeals.The lerned Judge drew a distinction between these sections and Sections 24 - 26 which relate to the granting of maintenance, expenses of proceeding and custody of children, the decisions under which are regarded as orders. In the opinion of the learned Judge, appeals from orders arising under the latter group of sections alone could be reg...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »