Andhra Pradesh Court October 1961 Judgments
P. Lakshmana Rao and Sons Vs. Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC860(AP)
ORDERJaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This petition is directed against the action of the Sales Tax Department in keeping a continuous watch over the business of the hotels of the petitioners. The petitioners, who are carrying on business of running hotels in the town of Vijayawada, complain that the respondents who belong to the Special Evasions Circle of the Sales Tax Department embarked upon a whole-time supervision of the actual business activity of the hotels. It is said that respondents 3 to 5 visited the hotels in the early hours of the morning on 22nd November, 1960, and went round all the rooms in the hotel including the kitchen and directed two of the respondents to sit at the counter by the side of the cashier while the other respondents were going round all the rooms and keeping watch and enquiring about the articles of food supplied to the customers, that when the customers came to pay the bill, one of the respondents takes the bill, inquires the customer what articles were consumed...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramdayal Ghansiram and Sons.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR461(AP)
CHANDRA REDDY C.J. - The question raised in this case is whether article 133 of the Constitution is attracted to a decision given by this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The Commissioner of Income-tax seeks to file an appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of this court answering a reference, under section 66(1) against the departments on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the erstwhile family house properties have been partitioned among the four members in definite portions for the purpose of section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case, we reached the conclusion that a partition had taken place among the members of the assessee family and that the erstwhile family house properties had been partitioned among the four members in definite portions within the meaning of section 25A(1) of the Income-tax Act and that in this case it was not necessary that...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Vakati Sanjeeva Setty.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR755(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY J. - These two referred cases raise a common question of law and have been consequently heard together at the request of the learned advocates for the parties. Both these cases have been referred under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. In Case No. 7 of 1960 the question referred is whether the assessees share of loss of Rs. 17,853 relating to the joint venture business in Sailu branch was rightly allowed, though it related to an unregistered partnership. In Case No. 1 of 1960, the question is whether the assessees share of loss in the firm of Messrs. Vivekananda Textiles, which firm was not assessed to tax and which was also not registered for the assessment year 1951-52, can be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the assessees net income from several sources falling under the head 'Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation' (i.e., section 10 of the Act) and also, if necessary, for the purpose of set off permissible under secti...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamad Salamatulla Vs. Mohd. Fazlur Raham and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1963AP51
ORDERJaganmohan Reddy, J. 1. This is an old revision of 1957. The point involved is whether the learned llnd Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was right in dismissing the pauper petition under Order 33, Rule 5(d) C. P. C. as not disclosing any cause, of action. The following observations of the lower court will indicate the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge : 'Cause of Action 'means the whole bundle of factswhich it is necessary for the plaintiffs to prove in orderto entitle him to succeed in the suit. This also, embracesthe question of right to sue as in a wide sense, it meansthe necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit.As observed above as prima facie the jurisdiction of theCivil Court is barred, and the question of jurisdictioncould only be decided after deciding the questions oflaw and fact on the merits of the case, it cannot besaid that the prima facie the petitioners, have, subsistingcause of action for which this Court can give a relief.This is not a clea...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. Vendra Venkanna, Proprietor of Jai Bhara ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1963AP58
Satyanarayana Raju, J. 1. The Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd., is the appellant in all these appeals. The appeals are presented against common judgment of the Court of the District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in O.S. Nos. 30, 53 and 54 of 1954 which were all instituted by the appellant herein as the plaintiff against various defendants. The suits were instituted claiming reliefs for an alleged infringement of the trade mark of the plaintiff in relation to cement concrete pipes manufactured and sold by the plaintiff and of the patent registered in relation to the said cement concrete pipes. 2. The plaintiff's case in brief is that it is a long standing manufacturer and seller of cement concrete pipes under the trade mark and name 'Hume Pipes' and 'Humeogenous Pipes'. The said pipes manufactured by it acquired reputation in India and other countries. The Company had registered the said trade marks with the Registrar of Trade Marks under the Trade Marks Act of 1940 (Act V of 1940) as Nos. 13...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Andhra Pradesh, by Its Secretary, Industries (i.F.), Dept ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1963AP132
ORDERSatyanarayana Raju, J.1. The question which arises for decision in this application is as to the scope of the duly of the Official Liquidator under Section 551 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956.2. That Section in so far as is material for the present purpose, reads thus :'(1) If the winding up of a Company is not concluded within one year after its commencement, the liquidator shall, unless he is exempted from so doing either wholly or in part by the Central Government, within two months of the expiry of such year and thereafter until the winding up is concluded, at intervals of not more than one year or at such shorter intervals, if any, as may be prescribed, file a statement in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars duly audited, by a person qualified to act as auditor of the company, with respect to the proceedings in, and position of, the liquidation- (a) In the case of a winding up by or subject to the supervision of the Court, in Court; xx xx xx (2) Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Jilledumudi Parvathamma Vs. Vempati Subhadramma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1963AP236
Narasimham, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in A. S. No. 376 of 1957, confirming the judgment of the District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, in O. S. No. 298 of 1956, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. 2. The plaintiff is the appellant. She is the widow of one Appala Raju, who died as a member of a joint family. She has instituted the present suit, O. S. No. 298 of 1956, seeking partition of the family house in Chaganti street, Visakhapatnam, into two equal shares and possession of one such share. 3. The defendants to this action are the other members of the family, the mortgage-decree-holder who obtained a decree and the auction-purchaser in execution of the decree. The following are the relevant facts. 4. The relationship of the parties to this action could be seen from this pedigree-table : Jilledumudi Appa Rao : Jilledumudi Subbamma died on 1934 (R. 2) (D. 2) | ____|_________________________________ | | | | Appalaraju : Parvat...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Inturi Vishnumurthi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ176AP
Sharfuddin Ahmed, J.1. The respondent herein, one Intoori Vishnumurthi, occupier-cum-manager of Intoori Vishnumurthi Tobacco Company, situated at Pandaripuram, Chillakaluripeta, was chargesheeted for contravening' Section 18 and Rules 74 and 36, Section 61 and Rule 79 and Section 45 and Rule 63 of the Factories Act of 1948 and rules framed there under.2. It was alleged that when the Additional Inspector of Factories (P.W. 1), Narsaraopet, visited the premises of the said tobacco company on 23 April 1959 at about 10-20 a.m. he found that the respondent had failed to frame a notice of periods of work for adult workers in form No. 11, both in English and Telugu, showing the daily hours of work, weekly holidays and scheme of changing of Bhift for each group. Secondly he noted that the respondent had not made arrangements for supply of good drinking water at the rate of one gallon per worker per day with dust' proof covers as provided in the rules. Lastly it came to his notice that the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Karri Ramamurthi Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1963AP63; [1963]33CompCas1038(AP)
ORDERChandrasekhara Sastry, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this case and the question that arises for decision is one under Section 6 of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. The plaintiff filed the suit to recover the amount assured under six Life Insurance Policies. The 1st defendant is the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Defendants 2 to 4 are different units of the same Corporation. The person, whose fife was assured, was the plaintiff's wife. She died on 22-3-1954. The suit was to recover a sum of Rs. 30,000/- being the total of the amounts due as per the terms of six policies issued by the defendants 2 to 4. The liability to pay was denied on behalf of the defendants on the ground that the policies were obtained by the plaintiff and his wife by suppressing vital and material facts and by mis-representation. The court-fee was paid by the plaintiff on the aggregate amount of Rs. 30,000/- claimed in the suit. The Court-fee examiner raised an objection tha...
Tag this Judgment!Jalappa Vs. Narasimha Setty and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1963AP420
Narasimham, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of Srinivasachari, J. in S.A. 693 of 1956 affirming the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur in A.S. 3 of 1955 and dismissing the plaintiff's appeal.2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff. The suit was instituted for redemption of certain properties which were originally mortgaged by the plaintiff's father, one Chinna Narasappa and his (plaintiff's father's) elder brother, Pedda Narasappa under a usufructuary mortgage deed D/- 24-2-1928. A registration copy of it was exhibited as Ext. A-1. The mortgagees were impleaded as defendants 1 and 2. The alienees of portions of the hypotheca and those in possession were impleaded as the other defendants in the suit.3. The facts of the case are these : Pedda Narasappa and China Narasappa were two undivided brothers who were living in Chadam Village in Rayadurg taluk of Anantapur District. They were having the business of running toddy shops. They acquired some lands...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›