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.
The Sirsilk Limited Vs. the Secretary to Govt., Labour Dept., Govt. of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1960AP373; (1960)ILLJ614AP
Chandra Reddy, C. J. 1. In this Writ Appeal filed against the judgment of Bhimasankaram J., the controversy revolves round the interpretation of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputed Act, 1947. 2. The facts material for this enquiry are in a narrow compass. The appellant is a company known as the Sirsilk Ltd., limited by shares incorporated under the Indian Companies Act with its registered office at Hyderabad and is the employer. The 2nd respondent is the General Secretary, the Sirsilk Ltd. Employee's Union, and represents the workmen of the company. Some time in 1956 a dispute arose between the workmen and the management and efforts at conciliation having failed, the Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. After an elaborate enquiry, the Tribu-nal submitted its award in the middle of September, 1957. Some time thereafter, but before the award could be published i.e., on 1-10-1957, the management and the workers arrived at a settlement which provided inter alia tha...
Mohamed Hyder Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1960AP479
Narasimham, J.1. The petitioner (Mohammed Hyder, a former Hyderabad Civil Servant) prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari in relation to an order of the former Government of Hyderabad dated 13-10-1956 removing him from service with effect from 18-9-1948, the date on which he was placed under suspension, with a view, to get the said order quashed. It is further prayed that a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be made by this Court to reinstate him into office with effect from 18-9-1948.2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition with the said prayers are briefly these The petitioner was appointed to the former Hyderabad Civil Service in 1937. In January, 1948 he was posted as the Talukdar of Osmanabad District. While he was serving as Talukdar, Osmanabad, he was placed under suspension on 18-9-1948 as he was accused of various grave offences in the course of his employment as Talukdar, Osmanabad. Prosecutions were launched against him in resp...
Thumu Govardhana Rao and ors. Vs. Bolineni Ramachandraiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP116
Umamaheswaram, J.1. The only question that arises for decision in this application is whether, under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is not open to this court to excuse the delay in filing the pauper application on the ground that the 1st petitioner acted bona fide on the advice of his Advocate at Guntur. The period prescribed for filing a regular appeal before the High Court is 90 days, while the period prescribed for filing a pauper appeal is 30 days.The learned Advocate, who was not aware that in regard to a pauper appeal there is a shorter period of limitation, advised the 1st petitioner that he might fife an appeal within 90 days. When the 1st petitioner came to Hyderabad, he was informed by his Advocate Sri Babulu Reddy that the period of limitation was 30 days. So, he filed an application to excuse the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides that if the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient caus...
Subba Rao (N.) Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-11-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ150AP
ORDERAnantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner is N. Subba Rao. He was formerly a prohibition sub-inspector. While he was working in that capacity, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise (Prohibition) framed charges against him and passed an order dated 21 May 1955 dismissing him petitioner; from service. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Excise and Prohibition, Andhra State. The latter passed an order dated 12 March 1956 reducing the punishment to one of compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner feels aggrieved with that order and praysthat this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction in this behalf, call for the records from the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition, Guntur, and quash the order passed by the latter; in R.C. No. 7053 of 1954 H., dated 21 October 1955, and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.2. The relevant facts of the case, as disclosed in the affida...
Repaka Seetharamaswamy and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-11-1960
Reported in: [1961]42ITR829(AP)
ANANTANARAYANA AYYAR, J. - In compliance with the requisition of this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act in Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 4613 and 4614 of 1954, dated August 4, 1955, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, has stated a case regarding the assessee, a firm consisting of two partners, namely, Repaka Seetharamaswamy and Achanta Pydisetty, Pondur, as follows :C.M.P. No. 4613 of 1954 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any justification for imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,000 under section 16 of the Excess Profits Tax Act ?'C.M.P. No. 4614 of 1954 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any justification for imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,000 under section 28(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'The facts of the case relevant for answering the above questions of law are as follows :The assessee firm was carrying on business in yarn, food-grains and manufacture and sale o...
Ramdayal Gashiram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-11-1960
Reported in: [1961]43ITR177(AP)
ANANTANARAYANA AYYAR J. - This is a petition filed by Messrs. Ramdayal Ghasiram, Merchants, Hyderabad (Dn.) under section 82(2) of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act read with section 66(2), Indian Income-tax Act, Praying that this court may be pleased to require the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, to state a case and refer the same to this court regarding some points of law which are alleged to arise as follows :'(i)(a) Whether in view of the fact that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had held the debt in question, viz., the sum of Rs. 3,564 due from the debtor, Veerannah, had already become bad, the Appellate Tribunal could, in law, come to the conclusion that the debt in question was good at the beginning of the accounting year; and whether the said finding of the Tribunal is not inconsistent with the evidence and contradictory to it (b) If the answer to question No. (i)(a) is against the petitioners whether the claim for bad debts is admissible under the provisions o...
Asgher HussaIn Vs. Vicarunnisa Begum and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP128
ORDERUmamaheswaram, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte decree passed in O.S. No. 107/1 of 1954-55 on the file of the Third Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the petition filed by the Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, lie stated that as he was held up in the Jagirdars Debt Settlement Board, he came to Court at 2 o' clock and that the suit was decreed ex parte. The petitioner herein filed an affidavit stating that as the advocate was arguing before the Jagirdars Debt Settlement Board, his Advocate was not present when the suit was called on for hearing.It is admitted that the petitioner was present in Court when the case was called. No counter was filed in the case. But still, the Third Judge, City Civil Court dismissed the application. He held that the mere fact that the advocate was arguing in another Court was not a sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte decree and he dismissed the application. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›