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.
Mukundas Proprietor, Krishna Cycle Stores, Secunderabad Vs. State of A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP298; [1960]11STC420(AP)
Satyanarayana Raju, J.1. In this Revision Case a somewhat novel point has been raised, and that is, whether after the reorganisation of States on the 1st November 1956, transactions of sale involving the movement of goods from the Telangana area into the Andhra area (both areas being constituent parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh) can be deemed to be inter-state sales.2. The petitioners are dealers in cycles and cycle parts at Secunderabad. This city was a part of the area comprised in Hyderabad State before its disintegration and is now within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh.3. For the assessment year 1956-57, the assessing authority under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act determined the petitioners' total net turn over at Rs. 10,95,439-14-9. Out of the aggregate turnover a sum of Rs. 46,739-2-0 represents the sales effected by the petitioners to dealers in the Andhra area from 1st November 1956 to 31-3-1957. It was contended by the petitioners that under section 119 ...
T. Ramasesham Raju Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP498
Manohar Pershad, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent to forbear from enforcing against of otherwise demanding compliance with from the petitioner of any of the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or the Rules framed thereunder.2. The petitioner is a grower and dealer in Virginia Tobacco. He challenges the Central Excise Rules framed by the Government as imposing severe restrictions on the gtower and curer and as unwarranted having regard to the purpose of the legislation. Though the writ petitioner in this petition had challenged all the rules, during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner confined his arguments only to Rules 15, 18(2), 21, 22, 23, 34 and 36 and contended that they offend Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.3. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, a ref...
Kondepudi Sriramamurthi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP302
Bhimasankakam, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 6 of tha Child Marriage Restraint Act XIX of 1929 and sentenced to simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to simple imprisonment for three weeks. He appealed against the conviction and sentence to the Sessions Judge, East Godavary who while confirming the conviction reduced the fine to a sum of Rupees 100/- or in default simple imprisonment for two weeks. The present revision case is directed against the conviction and questions its legality.2. When the case came up for hearing before a colleague of ours, as it appeared to him that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for reducing the sentence were not convincing, he directed the issue of notice to the petitioner, to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced. The case was after the notice again posted for hearing before one of us who considered it desirable that the matter should be heard and determined by ...
Kasiraju Lakshmikanta Rao Vs. Dendukuri Venkateswarlu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP576
ORDERSatyanarayana Raju, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against an order of the District Court, Guntur, and raises the question as to whether it is necessary, under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, to file a separate petition to set aside an award, and if so, is it chargeable to Court-fee.2. THE material facts are these : The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed O. Section 78 of 1957 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, for a decree directing rendition of accounts by the 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant'. Stated generally, the case between the parties had reference to the rendering of accounts and settlement of sums due thereon in connection with the alleged entrustment of certain monies by the plaintiff to the defendant Pending suit, the dispute between the parties was referred to arbitration.The arbitrators made their award on 13-10-1957, and it was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gunt...
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Sri Krishna Cocoanut Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-1959
Reported in: [1960]11STC687(AP)
Umamaheswaram, J.1. Three questions arise for consideration in both appeals Nos. 170 and 171 of 1956. The suits were instituted for refund of the sales tax paid by the plaintiff in each of the suits. The State of Andhra, represented by the Collector of East Godavari at Kakinada, contended that the sales tax was not refundable inasmuch as Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution did not apply to the case. It was further contended that the suits were barred by limitation as they were not filed within three years from the date of each monthly assessment and lastly, that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits under Section 18-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The Court below overruled all the contentions and decreed the suits. The State of Andhra has consequently preferred the two appeals.2. Sri D.V. Reddy Pantulu, the learned Advocate for the appellant, strenuously contended that the cocoanuts exported outside the Andhra State were not...
Chimata Rangayya and ors. Vs. Guntupalli Ramaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP233; 1960CriLJ560
ORDERBasi Reddy, J.1. I fail to see any illegality or impropriety in the order made by the learned District Judge affirming the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, directing the laying of a complaint against the first petitioner for offences under Sections 193, 196, 465 and 471 I. P. C. and (or offences under Sections 465, 193 and 196 read with Section 109 I. P. C. against the 2nd and 3rd petitioners.2. The two points taken in this revision petition are : (1) that the District Munsif has acted without jurisdiction in laying a complaint in the exercise of his powers under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code because the appropriate provision of law applicable to this case is Sub-section 5 of Section 479A, and in such a case, action under Section 476 is prohibited by Sub-section 6 of Section 479-A, Cr. P.C. and (2) that in the circumstances of the case and particularly having regard to the long iapse of time, the courts below have erred in holding that it is expedient in the i...
Mandava Kotial and ors. Vs. Mandava Sitaramayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP578
Chandra Reddy, C. J.1. This appeal is brought by defendants 1 to 4 against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Narsaraopet decreeing substantially O. S. No. 48 of 1.952, Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, defendants 5, 11 and 20, the alienees from the original appellants, got themselves impleaded as respondents.2. The action giving rise to this appeal was laid in forma pauperis by one Seetharamaiah as the adopted son of Mandava Venkarrayudu, a divided brother of the first defendant and the father o defendants 3 and 4, for possession of items 1 and 3 to 7 of the plaint B schedule, and items 1 to 6 and 8 of the C schedule, for partition of item 7 of the C schedule into two equal shares and for possession of one such share, for partition of the D schedule properties into three equal shares and for possession of one such share and for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from trespassing on items 2 and 8 of the B schedule properties.As regards items 1 to 5 of the ...
R.B. Raghunath Singh and Co. Vs. Commissioner under Workmen's Compensa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ598AP
M.A. Ansari, J.1. This is under Section 30 of the Indian Workmen's Compensation Act, and the appellant seeks to vary the Commissioner's award allowing the widow Rs. 1,800 due to her husband's having died because of injuries. It is not disputed that the deceased Rajammallu Veerayya was a ' hamal' transporting for the appellant shahbad stones at the rate of I.G. Rs. 8 per one thousand maunds, and coal for I.G. Rs. 9 per thousand maunda. On 25 September 1953, while unloading shahbad Btoije, the deceased received an injury on his left calf. He was treated as an outpatient in King Edward Memorial Hospital, Secunderabad, and did not attend to his usual work from 26 September 1953 to 5 October 1953, The next day he attended and thereafter was absent. On 12 October 1953 he was admitted at the Isolation Hospital, Lingampalli, because he had developed tetanus and he remained an inpatient in the said hospital till 16 October 1953. He then left, but died on 17 October 1953. In the claim by the wid...
Firm, Sree Rama Coconut Co., by Its Secretary P.V. Jagannadham Patnaik ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1961AP138
Besi Reddy, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents, the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Srikakulam Market Committee, to forbear from enforcing G. O. Ms. No. 91, Agriculture, D/- 10-1-1958, which declares the area within the limits of the District of Srikakulam as a notified area for the purposes of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933, in respect of coconuts.2. The petitioner-firms are doing business in the purchase and export of coconuts mostly to traders outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. Thequestion that is mooted in this writ petition is whether the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1033, in so far as it is sought to be applied to the petitioners by virtue of the said G. O., is repugnant to the provisions of the Indian Coconut Committee Act, 1944. The former will be referred to hereinafter as the Madras Act and the latter as the Central Act.If, as contended by the ...
Ramdayal Gasiram and Sons Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP502
Kumarayya, J. 1. These are two Tax Revision Cases which arise out of assessment proceedings for the years 1953-54 and 1954-55 in T. A. Nos. 214 and 215 of 1957 respectively. The turnover in dispute in both these cases is Rs. 4,07,599 and Rs. 26,92,401 and they relate to the purchases of castor seeds made in the erstwhile Hyderabad State by the Bombay Export Company with its headquarters at Bombay. The castor seed is a commodity taxable at purchase point, according to the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act. The course of business was that the assessee acting as the agents for the Bombay Export Company for taking delivery of the said castor seeds, purchased in the Hyderabad State used to pay the purchase price as remained unpaid by the company to the vendors, take delivery and store the same on company's behalf. There was a tripartite agreement between the assesses, the agent, and the Bombay Export Company, the principal, and also Jitcndraprakash God of Bombay, the guarantor. Under the term...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »