Andhra Pradesh Court February 1960 Judgments
Bethia Venkanna Vs. Sait Chunilal Moolchand Registered Firm, Kakinada ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP63
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J. 1. This appeal by one of the judgment-debtors (second defendant) is directed against the order of dismissal in E. A. No. 205 of 1957 in O. S. No. 124 of 1934 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kakinada. The respondent herein is the decree-holder (plaintiff). 2. The material facts are briefly these: A firm of Sait Chunilal Moolchand filed O. S. No, 124 of 1954 against Chundrapu Lovaraju and the present appellant on an amount due, on a settlement of accounts, towards the principal and interest. The first defendant contended in the suit that he was entitled to the benefits of Madras Act IV of 1938 and the lower court allowed that plea and restricted his liability under the decree to an amount of Rs. 14,619-13-7, while against the appellant, a decree was pawed for Rs. 19,282-1-3. In execution of the decree, the respondent filed E. P. No. 261 of 1956 against Chundrapu Lovaraju, (first defendant) for the full sum of the decree against Mm and got his proper...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vyricherla Chandramani Pattamahadevi Varu (Died) and ors. Vs. Lan ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1960AP590
ORDERMunikanniah, J.1. A simple but an interesting question arises in this revision petition for consideration. It is whether the Land Acquisition Officer can withdraw a Reference as if he is the petitioner with regard to that Reference.2. The claimant, Srimathi V. Chandramani Devi Garu, filed a petition on 11-5-1955 under the Land Acquisition Act before the Land Acquisition Officer, Vijianagaram alleging that the compensation was accepted by her under protest and Reference to the Civil Court may be made. The reference made on that representation had been filed in the Sub-Court, Visakhapatnam as O. P. No. 32 of 1955. While this O. P. was pending, the Land Acquisition Officer filed I.A. No. 125/55 in O. P. No. 32 of 1935 on 5-12-1955 purporting to be under Order XXIII Rule 1 and Section 151 C. P.C. praying that the reference made in O. P. No. 32 of 1955 may be allowed to be withdrawn or rejected as unnecessary, incompetent and untena-ble. In support of this application, the Land Acquisi...
Tag this Judgment!Venkateswara Oil Mills Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC555(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The question raised in this tax revision case is whether the opinion offered by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, namely, that if an oil miller, who purchased ground nut and paid sales tax at the purchase point, subsequently crushes the same quantity in his mills into oil and effects sales, he gets rebate to the extent of tax payable to the oil millers and ghanawallas having more than one ghana, precludes the Government from levying tax on such oil.2. The petitioner, Messrs. Venkateswara Oil Mills, Walker Town, Secunderabad, which deals in groundnuts and groundnut oil, was assessed to sales tax on its total turnover in the year 1953-54. Rebate was claimed by him in regard to oil which was manufactured out of groundnuts purchased by him and on which sales tax was paid at the purchase point, on the ground that such turnover was not eligible to tax. This turnover amounted to Rs. 2,21,010-8-6. The assessing authority rejected this claim, presumably, on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Income-tax Officer, Cuddapah, and Another Vs. Cuddapah Star ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-1960
Reported in: [1960]40ITR200(AP)
CHANDRA REDDY, C.J. - These four appeals are filed against the order of Umamaheswaram, J., quashing the levy of penalties made by the Income-tax Department.The facts giving rise to the appeals may be briefly set out. The respondent is a limited company, plying stage carriages for hire in the Cuddapah District. For the assessment year 1948-49, the assessee submitted its return showing an income of Rs. 59,870. The Income-tax Officer could not accept this return, as he felt that it did not represent its true income and he estimated it at Rs. 1,86,276 and levied a tax of Rs. 87,986-2-0. For the succeeding year, the income returned by the assessee was Rs. 93,060. This was also rejected by the Income-tax Officer, who computed the taxable income at Rs. 1,37,368, and levied a tax of Rs. 54,769-2-0. Demand notices for the two years were served on the managing director of the company on September 2,1950, and the company was required to pay the taxes on or before October 10, 1950.Against these as...
Tag this Judgment!Katradagga Lakhminadharao Naidu Vs. Special Officer, Rent Reduction, B ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1960AP560
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The question to be answered by the Full Bench is whether the State Government has power to revise the rents fixed under a notification issued under Section 3 of the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, XXX of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the detriment of the landholder.2. For an appraisal of the points calling for determination, it is necessary to state a few material facts. Junjeru village is an inam estate in the Ban-dar taluk of Krishna District. The provisions of the Act were made applicable to this village by a notification issued in G. O. Ms. No. 505, Revenue, dated 14th March, 1949. This inam estate was taken over under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 on the 1st Octo- her 1951. The said notification was issued and duly published after following the procedure indicated in Sections 2 and 3 of the Act which will be read ' presently.Ever since, the notification was being implemented and the rents ...
Tag this Judgment!Bonala Lakshmaiah Vs. Sagu Pullayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1960AP600
ORDERAnantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the judgment and order of the additional District Judge, in C. M. A. No. 1/56 confirming the judgment and order of the Subordinate Judge, Narsaraopet in I. P. No. 9 of 1954, adjudicating the 4th respondent herein as an insolvent.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to by their denomination in I. P. No. 9/54 on the file of the subordinate Judge's Court, Narsaraopet.3. The relevant facts of the case may be briefly stated. Two petitioners (creditors) filed I. P. No. 9 oi 1954 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet against four respondents praying tor an adjudication of the first and second respondents as insolvents. They relied for the insolvency on the fact that the tirst respondent was unable to pay his debts and that he executed a fraudulent sale deed for Ac. 2-15 cents in favour of the third responent on 23-11-1953 and that in order to defeat the creditors, he suffered a collusive decr...
Tag this Judgment!Ulchala Illuri Hanumanthiah Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kurnool, and Anoth ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-1960
Reported in: [1960]40ITR32(AP)
SESHACHELAPATI, J. - This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the notice of attachment dated February 21, 1958, issued by the second respondent and to quash the order passed therein for the recovery of the tax.The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are briefly these : The petitioner is a resident of Kurnool and was doing business in ground-nuts. He submitted a return for the year 1946-47, showing an assessable income if Rs. 4,938. During the course of assessment in the year 1947-48, it was found that he had deliberately concealed a large portion of his income by suppression of entries with respect to stocks and by claiming fictitious losses and other manipulation in the accounts. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the Income- tax Officer estimated his income at Rs. 60,550. A notice under section 28(3) of the Act was issued to the assessee to show cause ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Vs. Parvathaneni ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960AP612; [1960]40ITR195(AP)
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The assessee is a partner in a registered firm, known as M/s. Navayuga Films, Vijayavada. 3/16th share of the profits in this firm for the assessment year, 1956-57, was computed at Rs. 40,927/-. In order to invest his share of the capital, the assessee borrowed money from third parties and he had to pay an interest of Rs. 5,099/- On such borrowed money. In the return he submitted, he inter alia claimed a deduction of this sum.2. This was disallowed by the assessing authority on the ground that the assessee's net income was ascertained with reference to Section 23(5)(a) and Section 23(6) of Income Tax Act and, as such it is not a justifiable deduction. The basis of this opinion was an unreported judgment of the Calcutta High Court In Iswardas Subha Karan v. Commr. of Income-tax, West Bengal, Income Tax Referred Case No. 38 ot 1952 (Cal).3. The appeal of the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but his further appeal to the Income Tax Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Bellamkonda Buchi Ramiah and ors. Vs. Bellamkonda Rukkamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP43
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This case has been referred to a Bench by one of us as involving an important question of law relating to the attachment in execution of maintenance order passed under Section 488 Cr. P. C. in favour of 1st defendant against her husband, the 2nd defendant. In execution of the decree the cattle and a cart were attached. The appellant who is the father of the 2nd defendant, filed an .objection petition stating that the cattle and the cart were his self-acquired property and were not liable to attachment and sale under a decree obtained against his son, the 2nd defendant. This objection petition was dismissed. The plaintiff filed the present suit for a declaration that the cattle and the cart were not liable to be attached.2. The 1st defendant resisted the claim of the appellant on the ground that the property in question belonged to the 2nd defendant and so it was rightly attached. The 2nd defendant remained ex parte.3. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence was le...
Tag this Judgment!Makkapati Purnananda Sastri Vs. Chintalapati Purnanandam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP435
Umamaheswaram, J. 1. This is an appeal directed by the plaintiffagainst the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Vijayavada dismissing his suitfor recovery of possession of the properties mentioned in A to D schedules attached to the plaintand for mesne profits. The plaintiffs case is thatall the suit properties belonged to MakkapatiSuryaprakasam, who died in 1886, and that uponhis death, Makkapati Lakshmidevamma succeededto those properties.The plaintiff was adopted by Lakshmidevamma on 30-3-1939- He attained majority on 9-8-1950 and he filed the suit for recovery of the properties on 7-8-1953. So far as A and B schedule properties are concerned, he contended that the ante-adoption agreement entered into by his natural father with the widow Lakshmidevamma on 25-3-1939 was not valid and binding and that he Was consequently entitled to recover those properties from defendants 1, 4 and 5 with mesne profits. As regards C and D schedule properties, his contention was that the gi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »