Andhra Pradesh Court January 1960 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.
P.R. Bizani Vs. Hans Zucker Baeker
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1960AP459
ORDERMunikanniah, J.1. This revision petition is against the order of the District Judge, Adilabad, refusing to issue a commission to examine the defendant or his witnesses. In his order, the learned District Judge has adverted to the vexation caused by the defendant in resiling from his attitude not to cross-examine and then accusing the Court and afterwards also not exercising the right when allowed to do so. It is also pointed out that on behalf of the defendant no attempt has been made to admit or deny the documents filed by the other side and the learned District Judge nas been of the opinion that the defendant has been employing dilatory tactics. Having regard to this observation and also because where the suit is based upon the oral loan, the examination of the defendant in Court so as to enable his demeanour to be observed cannot but be considered most essential. The learned District Judge has pointed out that the defendant has not produced any medical certificates and the appl...
Gandham Nagabhushanam and anr. Vs. Mohd. Asharafunnisa Bahebani and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1960AP602
ORDERMunikanniah, J.1. An interesting question concerning the act of acceptance of a document, viz., plaint after the date for representation with full court-fee has been fixed but exceeded, is involved in this revision petition. The plaint in the instant case was filed on 6-1-1958 based upon a promissory note executed on 21-6-1952. The promissory note had in it an endorsement of payment of Rs. 5/- on 5-1-1955. As 5-1-1958 was a public holiday, the plaint was in time even though it was presented on 6-1-1958. But, as it was insufficiently stamped because it was affix-ed with Re. 1/- stamp while the correct court-tee being Rs. 12/-, it was returned on 7-1-1958, giving time for representation with full court-fee till the next day, viz., 8-1-1958.The plaint was actually represented on 5-2-1958 and accepted by the Court. While representing the plaint, the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 95 of 1958 to excuse the delay in re-presentation. However,' the court by its order dated 25-4-1958 made it cle...
Masulipatam Municipality Represented by Commissioner Vs. Rallabhandi V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1960AP572
Umamaheswaram, J.1. Masulipatam Municipality represented by the Commissioner is the appellant in Appeal No. 366 of 1956 and the petitioner in CRP Nos. 805 and 806 of 1956, The appeal as well as the revision petitions arise out of O.S. No. 41 of 1952 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Masulipatam instituted by Rallabandi Kama Chandrayya (since deceased) for appointment of an administrator to take possession of all moveable and immoveable properties of late J.V. Subba Rao and to pay off the legacies to the plaintiff and other legatees mentioned in plaint D schedule and for carrying out all the objects and directions set forth in the will of the testator D/- 20-6-1942 and marked as Ex. A-2. The suit was originally tiled against three defendants. The 1st and 2nd defendant were executors and trustees of the estate of late J.V. Subbarao. The 3rd defendant claimed that he was the adopted son of late J.V. Subbarao. The appellant was added as the 4th defendant by reason of the order ...
P. Rajeswaramma Vs. Income-tax Officer, Nellore, and Another.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-1960
Reported in: [1960]39ITR654(AP)
BHIMASANKARAM, J. - These writ petitions raise the same question and involve the construction of sub-section (5A) of section 46 of the Income-tax Act.The assessee is P. Change Reddy & Co. Ltd., Gudur. A notice dated February 28, 1952, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Nellore, under the sub-section mentioned, was served on the petitioners in W.P. No. 981 of 1958 on March 7, 1952. In that notice it was stated that tax amounting to the sum of Rs. 72,819-9-0 was due from the assessee to the Department and a demand was made that the petitioners, who owed money to the assessee, should pay the Officer the amount due from them or held by them for or on account of the assessee, up to the amount of arrears stated. A similar notice was served on the petitioner in W.P. No. 980 of 1958 also at about the same time.The petitioners in W.P. No. 981 of 1958 assert that soon after receiving the notice, they sent the Officer a written objection to it on the ground that no sum was due from them to, or hel...
K. Ch. Jagannadha Rao Minor by Father and Guardian K. Elesha Vs. Secre ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP46
ORDERSeshachalapati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records in R. C. 8 BM/58 from the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and in R. C. 8 BM/58 dated 28-8-1958 from the Commissioner of Government Examinations, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and to quash the order dated 28-8-1958 recorded in S. S. L. Certificate of the petitioner.2. The petitioner was a student in the VI form in the Board High School, Nandigama. Krishna District in the year 1957-58. He sat for the S. S. L. C. Public Examination held in March 1958 with the register No. 18572. The examination was conducted at the Board High School, Nandigama, where 212 students from five neighbouring high schools sat to write their papers. The examination would appear to have been held on 12-3-1958 and the following days. On 13-3-1958, a telegram was sent by some person alleging that the examiners were helping the studen...
In Re: V. Govinda Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1960AP366
ORDERMunikanniah, J.1. The proprietor of Radharamana Bhavan Coffee and Meals Hotel, Masulipatam who has been convicted under Section 2(1)(a) and Section 7 read with Rule 46 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-is the petitioner. The case against him is that he was found stocking adulterated ghee intended for service and for preparation of food articles. That ghee has been found to contain 37 per cent of fat not derived from milk or cream.The question is whether the accused who is not in possession of ghee for the purpose of sale or sells ghee as such, but has stored ghee intended to be served with meals or in the preparation of an article of food viz., the preparation of dishes accomplying meals or as refreshments, could be found guilty of the offence charged with.2. Mr. Adavi Rama Rao for the petitioner has contended that any storage of an adulterated article of food when it is not meant for sale as such would not constitute an offence...
In Re: G.R. Macfarland
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP3; 1961CriLJ33
Jaganmohan Reddy, J. 1. This is an appeal by the accused G. R. Macfarland, formerly permanent Way Inspector, Southern Railways Gudivada, against his conviction under Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called the Act) and under Section 477-A I.P.C. and sentence of one month simple imprisonment for each of the offences, and sentences to run concurrently.2. The accused, while he was working as Permanent Way Inspector at Gudivada, was charged with having misappropriated 18 asbestos sheets of 10'-3' x 3'-51/2' 9/32' entrusted to him along with 50 other such sheets between 16-6-1955 and October, 1956. It is stated that in order to facilitate this misappropriation he had prepared with intent to defraud a false voucher No. 293 dated 23-2-1959 purporting to show that the said 18 sheets were used for the renewal of Gudivada island platform covering, while, in fact, no such renewal was done.It was further alleged that he falsified the corresponding entries in the day...
Simpson and Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ611AP
ORDERSeshachalapati, J.1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order to interdict the further proceedings in pursuance of the notification in G.O. Ms. No. 60, Home (Labour-1), dated 6 January 1959, and the passing of the award in pursuance thereof.2. The petitioner la a public limited liability company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and doing business under the name and style of Simpson & Co., Ltd., having its registered office at Madras and a branch in Secunderabad. The respondent 3 was employed in the service of the Secunderabad branch of Simpson & Co., as a salesman. For some alleged misconduct on the part of the respondent 3 the petitioner-company took action against him and terminated his services. It is necessary for me to refer to the nature of the complaint against the respondent 3 or his defence thereto in this petition. There were certain conciliation p...
Veereshwar Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ391AP
Satyanarayana Raju, J.1. This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State of Andhra Pradesh to reinstate the petitioner in service.2. The circumstances giving rise to this petition are somewhat exceptional and must be stated in detail. On 6 September 1946, Veereshwar Rao, the petitioner before us, was appointed to the post of permanent third grade typist in the office of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. While he was so employed, the Government appointed biro, on 30 April 1947, as a clerk in the Palshi office of the Deputy Minister for Supply and Agriculture. Subsequently, on 14 August 1947, he was appointed as a second grade clerk in the Supply Secretariat. On 16 September 1948 the Government informed the Commissioner, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, that the petitioner's lien on the substantive post which he held in the Corporation might be cancelled. On the abolition of the P...
Chagnati Raghava Reddi Vs. Kondapaneni Krishnayya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1960AP631
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This appeal is brought by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 103 of 1950 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tenali, against the judgment of out learned brother Satyanarayana Raju, J.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly set out. The appellant instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent for recovery of some amount due to him on certain dealings. There was attachment of a house belonging to the respondent before judgment. After obtaining the decree, the appellant proceeded to bring that property to sale. Presumably, a notice under Order 21, Rule 66 C.P.C. Was served on the respondent at the time of the drawing up of the proclamation of sale. But he does not seem to have appeared in answer to that notice, with the result that the terms of the proclamation of sale were settled in his absence.After its publication, the property was brought to sale and it was purchased by a third party. As he failed to make the necessary deposit, the pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »