Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Kamapati Venkat Ramiah Vs. Challapalli Sitharamiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP208; 1961CriLJ612
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This reference has been occasioned by two conflicting judgments, one of a Bench of the Madras High Court in Chunchu Narayana v. Karrapati Kesappa, : AIR1951Mad500 (a judgment of the year 1950) and the other of this Court in Subba Raju v. Koneti Raju : AIR1955AP99 , which declined to follow the former Bench decision. Our learned brother Basi Reddi J., having regard to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Subbarayudu v. State, : AIR1955AP87 which ruled that the decisions of the Madras High Court rendered prior to 5th July 1954 were binding on the High Court of Andhra and that where a Division Bench of the Andhra High Court was inclined to take a view different from that of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court of equal strength, the case should be referred to a Full Bench, referred this matter to a Bench for being referred to a Full Bench. The following question has been referred by the Bench (of which one of us was a party): 'Whether under the second pro...
Chebrolu Nagabhushanam and anr. Vs. Rachapudi Seetharamiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP224
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The question to be answered by the Full Bench is whether Section 9 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, IV of 1938 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) applies to a promissory note executed after the commencement of the Act in discharge of an anterior debt incurred after 1st October, 1932 and before the commencement of the Act.2. The question involved in both the revision petitions is the same. The two suits giving rise to these revisions are based on promissory notes executed in the years 1950 and 1952 but the liability of the respondents in both the cases originated in the year 1937. Though the debts were liable to be d down alter the Act came into operation, the suit promissory notes were executed for the full amounts i.e. for the principal and interest at the contract rate.3. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that they were entitled to a decree on the basis of the suit promissory notes and that it is Section 13 of the Act that applies and not Se...
Velchata Rajeswara Rao Vs. Kalvakota Venkataramarao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP310
Jaganmohan Reddy, J. 1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. The question is whether the order against which leave is sought is a final order within the meaning of that Article. By a judgment of this Court (to which one of us was a party) an appeal was allowed and the lower court was directed to entertain an application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 C. P. C., treating it as one under Order 47, Rule 1 and to collect court fees. This is what the order slated:-- '... We would therefore allow the appeal and remand the case to the lower court, on payment of proper court fee on the review petition, to dispose it of on the merits and according to law. The party it allowed to add a ground to the review application that he was not hound to appear because the order adjourning the case was not that of the Court.' It appears from the facts as stated in the appeal that the suit was dismissed for default on April, 28, 1951 as t...
Poosapati Lakshminarasimha Raju and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP407
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The report submitted by the District Munsiff is that the value of the subject-matter of the suit on 4th June 1948 was Rs. 7,930/- and Rs. 15,860 as on 29th May 1960 when the appeal to the Supreme Court was proposed to be filed. The report is attacked on the ground that the District Munsiff in appointing a Commissioner to inquire into the value of the property has acted without jurisdiction. This argument is based on Order 45 Rule 5 C.P.C. and the decision Hansman Jha v. Bahuji Jah, ILR 43 Cat 225: (AIR 1916 Cal 102(1) ).2. We do not think that this argument is admissible. Order 45, Rule 5 C.P.C. is in these words;'In the event of any dispute arising between the parties as to the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance, or as to the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court to which a petition for a certificate is made under Rule 2 may, if it thinks fit, refer such dispute for...
Hendricks and Sons Vs. Industrial Tribunal and Ors. (Automobile Worker ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ484AP
Sanjeevarao Naidu, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1091 of 1956, of our learned brother Srinivasachari, J. 1959 I L.L.J. 235, who confirmed the decision of the industrial tribunal in the case, and directed the dismissal of the writ petition.2. The facts out of which this writ appeal has arisen may be briefly stated:The appellants are the employers of Hendricks & Sons., a firm of automobile repairers in Secunderabad. One Papiah was in the employment of the firm of the appellants, as a motor mechanic. For about a year prior to 1956, the appellants noticed a tendency on Papiah's part to bring: down the reputation of the business of the appellants and a series of complaints had been received by them from their customers expressing dissatisfaction at the repair work done by Papiah on their cars. On 21 January 1956 at about 2-45 p.m. a Hindustan car was entrusted to Papiah with instructions to dismantle the timing case and the engine-head of the car. Wh...
Vysyaraju Suryanarayana Raju and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Repr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1963AP105
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. The question raised in this writ petition relates to the constitutionality of the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. The vires of this Act is put in challenge mainly on the ground that it does not provide for compensation to the inamdar and as such is repugnant to Article 31 of the Constitution.2. The short answer to the contention of Sri Ranganathan is that Section 4(3) provides for compensation in the shape of a ryotwari patta to the inamdar for one-third of the inam. It is true that the inamdar is not paid compensation in terms of cash. But, we are not impressed with the argument of Sri Ranganatham that allotting a one-third of the inam sought to be abolished does not amount to compensation. In our opinion, the assignment of a share in the inam abolished or allotment of a definite extent of land is as good a compensation as payment in cash. In fact Section 4(3) speaks of the grant of patta to the inamdar as compensation payable to...
Sistla Ramakrishna Sastry Vs. Madduri Sundaramma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP500
Krishna Rao, J.1. This appeal is brought by the decree-holder in S. C. No. 635 of 1950 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Masulipatam and arises out of an application made there by the judgment-debtor under Order XXI Rule 90 and Sections 47 and 115 C.P.C. to set aside the sale in execution held on 20-12-1954. The learned District Munsiff dismissed the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 166, having been, filed on 7-2-1955 after the expiry of the period of 30 days allowed from the date of the sale.On Appeal by the decree-Bolder, the learn-ed Subordinate Judge held following Venkateswara Ettu Naicker v. Ayyammal, : AIR1950Mad367 that in cases where there is no proclamation of sale at all, the sale is void and the application was governed by Article 181, which allows a period of three years. He accordingly found that the sale was void, allowed the judgment-debtor's application and set aside the sale.2. In : AIR1950Mad367 , Krishnaswamy N...
Gopikishen Agrawal and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP170
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. These appeals are filed against the judgment of Seshachalapathi J. in Writ Petitions Nos. 1210 and 1211 of 1958 declining to issue a writ oi mandamus to restrain the respondent from collecting the amount of the difference in duty in pursuance of the final assessment notice served upon the appellants with reference to the various con-cerns. 2. Both the appeals, though the parties are not the same, raise common questions and could therefore be dealt with in one judgment. 3. The appellants are leading exporters of manganese ore to overseas buyers from Visakhapatnam. They entered into contracts with some foreign companies in 1950 agreeing to sell large quantities of manganese ore. The price fixed per ton of 2240 lbs. of dry weight manganese ore f.o.b. steamer, Visakhapatnam, India, was 20 dollars inclusive of all Indian taxes payable by the seller. The contracts contained a stipulation that this price was based upon the metallic manganese content of 46 per cent and f...
Alapati Ramamurthi, Vs. J. Ramanujam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP408
Kumarayya, J.1. These two appeals raise questions of law and fact and may he conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. In fact, the two suits O. S. Nos. 10 and 13 of 1951 out of which they arise were, at the request of the parties tried together and a common judgment was rendered by the Additonal Subordinate Judge, Vijayavada. The plaintiff-seller in both the suits is a firm registered under the Partnership Act doing business at Vijayavada in jute products. The 2nd defendant who is a broker and is said to have brought about the contract between the purchaser and the seller is common to both the suits. The buyer is the 1st defendant in each of the suits, They are separate individuals. The suits are tor recovery of damages for breach of contract on account of non-acceptance of the goods sold.2. Brictly stated, the facts, according to the plaintiti's case are: that on 20-12-1947 the 2nd defendant arranged contracts Nos. 367 and 368 at Vijayavada between the plainliif on the one hand ...
Ammireddi Ramamoorty (Died) and ors. Vs. Ammireddi Sitharamamma and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP131
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The two questions that are referred to the Full Bench are (i) whether the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are retrospective and (ii) whether a married woman, who left her husband and lived with another as his permanently kept mistress could be regarded as an Avaruddha Stree.2. The facts material for this enquiry may be set out shortly. The respondents originally raised an action In the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam, for a declaration of their right to and possession of the several properties set out in the plaint schedule. The 1st respondent is the mother and next friend of respondents 2 to 4, who are minors. The properties were claimed as belonging to one Amireddi Llngayya, who died in February, 1948, with the averments that the 1st respondent is a Brahmin by birth, that in or about 1938 she was married to the said Lingayya, a Sudra, who had lost his first wife and that respondents 3 t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »