Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
Budhan Khan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC829(AP)
ORDERSeshachalapati, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of the Hyderabad Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Regulation, No. XXIV of 1358 Fasli, in pursuance of the notices dated 13th November, 1958, issued by the 3rd and 4th respondents, the Commercial Tax Officer of the First Circle and of the Third Circle, Hyderabad, respectively. The petitioner is the proprietor of 'City Petrol Service' and 'Dominion Petrol Service' both of which are located in Hyderabad. He states in his affidavit that he was paying the taxes due under the Hyderabad Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Regulation. The Regulation was repealed by Section 13 of the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation (Andhra Pradesh Extension and Amendment) Act, 1958 (Act V of 1958). Act V of 1958 has extended to the Telangana area the provisions of the Madras Act VI of 1939. The presen...
Jampala Pakeeraiah and anr. Vs. Katuru Venkateswararao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1960AP566
ORDERUmamaheswaram, J. :1. The important question of law that arises for decision in the appeal is whether when an alienation effected by a father is set aside at the instance of the sons, the purchaser in possession is bound to pay mesne profits from the date of the alienation. There is a conflict of authority on the point. In Subba Goundan v. Krishnamachari, ILR 45 Mad 449: (AIR 1922 Mad 112,) It was held at p. 465 (of ILR Mad) : (at p. 118 of AIR) that the sale effected by a father or managing member of the joint family will be good till avoided, as it is open to other coparceners to affirm the transaction. Following the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bhirgu Nath Chaube V. Narsingh Tewari, ILR 39 All 61: (AIR 1917 All 479) the learned Judges limited the claim for mesne profits from the date of suit as there was no repudiation before the suit. The same 'view was taken by the Madras High Court in Ganesa Aiyar v. Amirathasami, AIR 1918 Mad 178, and the learned Judges held that...
Deccan Tile Works Vs. their workmen (Tile Factories Workers' Union ) a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-1960
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ298AP
ORDERSeshachalapathi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the award of the labour court, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur, in Industrial Dispute No. 21 of 1958. The petitioner is the management of the Deccan Tile Works, Samalkot, East Godavari, and the respondent 1 is the Secretary of the Samalkot Tile Factories Workers' Union representing the workmen of the petitioner's tile factory. Between the owners of the tiles factories and the workmen in Samalkot, there was a general agreement of wages as embodied in Ex. A. 1, dated 5 June 1957. That settlement, was made under the terms of Section 12, Sub-section (3), of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. On 3 June 1957 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Chief Inspector, Factories and Boilers, notifying his intention to close down the factory for one month from 17 June 1957, for effecting certain repairs and making some structural alterations. The factory Was closed but did not reopen within a month as contemp...
J and J Dechane Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-1960
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ765AP
ORDERNarasimham, J.1. This is a petition pre-ferred under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the decision of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that the petitioner's factory known as J. & J. Dechane cornea within the purview of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (Act XIX of 1952), and the scheme framed thereunder and also restraining the recovery of the amounts of contribution and administrative charges payable thereunder, by the Collector.2. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of a concern engaged in the manufacture of Pharmaceuticals ran in the business name of J. & J Dechane at Troop Bazaar, Hyderabed, The said business of manufacture of the Pharmaceuticals came within the purview of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 from 30 September 1958. Thereupon, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued a notice dated 18 September 1956 to the petitioner informing him that his factory fulfilled the conditions under Section...
Edma Satyamma Vs. Edma Gopala Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP122
ORDERUmamaheswaram, J. 1.This is an application to revise the order of the Dist. Judge of Karimnagar in Case No. 19/1 of 1957 refusing to permit the petitioner to amend the petition by including an alternative relief. In the original petition filed by the petitioner, she stated that she was treated cruelly by her husband and that the husband was also guilty of adultery, and that divorce may be ordered. Subsequently, she filed an amendment application requesting the Court to permit her to include the relief of judicial separation, if divorce cannot be granted. The Court below has, in a very laconic order, dismissed the amendment application in the following terms : 'No question of amendment arises in this case as such proceedings under the Act shall be initiated by original petition as per the rules regulating the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, R.O.C. No. 422/56 B-1, Clause 2.' 2. Under Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Ac...
Kollu Kangayya Naidu Vs. Jayamangala Reddeyya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1960AP634
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal was referred by Ranganadham Chetty J. to be heard by a Bench, as he thought that it raises an important question relating to the interpretation of Order 21, Rules 54 and 57, C, P. C.2. The appellant is the purchaser of the properties in dispute in a Court auction. These properties were brought to sale in execution of a decree obtained by the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant in O. S. No. 102 of 1948.3. The subject-matter of the appeal, which is land of an extent of Ac. 6-95 cents, was attached by the plaintiff in that suit before judgment and notice of the attachment was served on the respondent. The respondent had in his favour an agreement of sale of this property executed by the judgment-debtor and other members of his family on 5-3-1948, i. e., mote than six weeks before the institution of O. S. No. 102 of 1948. He obtained a sale deed in respect of this land on 2-6-1948.4. O. S. No. 102 of 1948 was decreed on ...
Sri Damma Pedda Yellappa Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC691(AP)
Narasimham, J.1. The appellant is the same in these three appeals preferred under Section 23(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act against the orders of the Board of Revenue restoring the orders of assessment passed by the Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions), Anantapur, for the years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57.2. The appellant is described by the authorities as a dealer and manufacturer of Ayurvedic medicines at Nandyal. He prepares a specific for venereal diseases known as 'Satha Jambira Rasayanam', which is very widely sold. He did not register himself as a 'dealer' within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.3. The Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions), Nandyal, surprised his business-cum-residence at Nandyal on 12th June, 1957. He did not produce any accounts of his sales. However, the officer recovered bundles of V.P.P. money order coupons filed date-war with an abstract showing the amounts received on each day.4. Laterly, the Special Comm...
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bayya Subba Rao and Company
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC545(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has brought this revision case against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal accepting an appeal of the respondent.2. The facts material for the purpose of this enquiry may be briefly set out. The respondent is a firm running under the name and style of Messrs. Bayya Subbarao & Co., the partners thereof being Bayya Ramakrisnaiah, Bayya Subbarao and Bayya Pitchaiah. This firm was doing business in castor oil and castor cake and gingelly oil and was registered in the Commercial Tax Department as G.I. No. 5077. These brothers formed into another partnership to carry on another business under the name and style of Messrs. Bayya Ramakrishnaiah and Brothers. The two partnership firms were separately registered and taxed by the Saies Tax Department under two different assessment numbers till 1954-55. They also obtained separate licences from the municipality for running their respective businesses. Messrs. Bayya Subbarao & Co., de...
K.R. Chari Vs. Secunderabad Cantonment Board Represented by Its Presid ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP37
ORDERSeshachalapati, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 220 of the Constitution of India for the isuse of a writ of prohibition restraining the Respondent Secunderabad Cantonment Board from enquiring into the charges framed against the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a Sanitary Inspector in the service of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board. One Sri Abdul Rahman, Sanitary Overseer working under the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Assistant Health Officer in the service of the Respondent Board that the petitioner had abused andassaulted him. Thereupon, the Assistant Health Officer, one Major Lopez, conducted a preliminary enquiry and, it is stated in the counter affidavit that Major Lopez called for a written explanation, from the petitioner and intimated to him that he would make an enquiry on 28-7-59. On 28-7-59 Major Lopez questioned the parties and some witnesses. The petitioner filed his explanation before Major Lopez on 29-7-59. Eventually, Major Lopez forwarded the compl...
Sheik Abdul Sattar Vs. District Collector, Masulipatam, and Another.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1960
Reported in: [1960]40ITR27(AP)
SESHACHELAPATI J. - This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to forebear from the certificate proceedings in pursuance of an assessment order made by the second respondent dated July 31, 1957.The petitioner is the widow of one late Sheik Abdul Sattar,. who died on November 16, 1949, leaving behind him. in addition to the petitioner (his widow), three sons and two daughters. For the accounting year 1949-50 an assessment was made in the year 1950-51 on the income of the deceased Abdul Sattar Saheb. The petitioner contended before the Income-tax Officer that after the death of Sattar Saheb, by a deed of partnership dated November 21, 1949, a partnership firm was constituted and that the firm ought to have been registered under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim for registration and made an assessment against the petitioner and other on the footing of asso...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »