Andhra Pradesh Court March 1961 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 Workman, B. Somayajulu, Correspondent Represented by President, An ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1961AP528; (1961)IILLJ265AP
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The principal point that culls for decision in both these petitions is whether a newspaper correspondent is a working journalist within the terms oi the Working Journalists (Conditions ol Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955.2. These petitions seek the issuance of writs of certiorari to call for the records of the Labour Courts, Andhra Pradesh, one situated at Guntur and the other at Hyderabad. The Labour Court of Hyderabad sitting at Guntur decided that a correspondent is a working journalist as defined in the Act, while the other court held that a correspondent did not satisfy the definition of 'working journalist' in the Act. As the facts of these two cases are similar and as the principle evolved in one would govern the other, it is sufficient to deal with one of them.For this purpose, we will consider the tacts ol W. P. No. 677 of 1958. The petitioner was engaged on 12-2-35 as a correspondent at Guntur by the Express Newspapers Limited and he was b...
Legu Venkataramanayya Setty and anr. Vs. Gunda Subbayya Chetty and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962AP175
ORDER(1) This revision petition is directed against the orders of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool dated 24th June 1957 which called upon the petitioner to furnish security of immoveable property in order that the petitioner's application to set aside the sale held on 25-11-1957 could be proceeded with by the Court. The order of the lower court is attacked on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the learned Subordinote Judge ignored the earlier order dated 24-1-1958 of the same court calling upon the petitioner to furnish third party personal security and that therefore the latter order dated 24-6-1958 is without jurisdiction.(2) The short facts which need be mentioned are the following: As against the petitioner. a decreewas obtained by the respondent in O. S. No. 54 of 1954. The decree-holder proceeded to execute the decree and brought the properties of the petitioner to sale in E. P. No. 92 of 1956 and the decree-holder knocked the properties at the auction in his favour after ...
Sajja Suryanarayana Rao Vs. Sajja Veera Rajamma (Died) H.S. Hanumantha ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1964AP223
Kumarayya, J. 1. This is plaintiffs second appeal and is before us on reference by one of us as it raises a question of raw bearing on the effect of, dismissal in default of a claim petition made by defendant No. 1 under Section 325 H.c.p.c. corresponding to Order XXI, Rule 58, C.P.C. on which there is a difference of opinion between the erstwhile Hyderabad High Court and the other High courts of India. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are these plaintiff-appel-lant Suryanarayana, son of Janardnanaswamy brought a sun for declaration of title to the suit house situated in Kishna-pur, Warangal. Disrict against derendant 1, his own paternar grand-mother, and defendant 2, Hanumantha Rao, alreged to be the tenant in occupation. The plaint allegations were that Janardhanaswamy, father of the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the suit property, that after his death, the plaintiff was in possession, that the plain-tiff's father had taken a loan from one Mond. Sherif, who in a suit brought a...
Kurella Pullayya Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR364(AP)
NARASIMHAM J. - This reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act raises the questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is any material to hold that the applicant is the owner of the money-lending business carried on by Srimathi Chandramathi and whether the assessment as upheld by the Appellate Tribunal was legal and(2) On whom does the burden lie to establish the benami nature of the transaction and whether the burden has been discharged in this case ?'The facts relevant to these questions are these :The assessee is one Kurella Pullayya, a businessman of Masulipatam, Krishna District. The assessments relate to assessment years 1943-44 to 1948-49. The assessments have been made by the Income-tax Officer, Masulipatam Circle, under section 13, proviso, of the Indian Income-tax Act in respect of the income relating to the business of money-lending which the Income-tax Officer found as belonging to him, though he carried on the said busi...
D. D. Italia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-1961
Reported in: [1962]44ITR131(AP)
CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRY J. - The following questions are referred to the High Court under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act :'(1) Whether the assessment made upon the assessee on November 30, 1954, for the assessment year 1950-51 under the Indian Income-tax Act has been validly made ?(2) Whether the sum of Rs. 2,500 paid to Baba Gaud is an item of capital expenditure within the meaning of section 10 (2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'We shall take up for consideration the first question. The material facts which give rise to these questions are these :The assessee was being assessed under the erstwhile Hyderabad State Income-tax Act. The assessment year under that Act is from 1st October of every year and ending with the following 30th September. The accounting year is the previous year beginning with 1st October and ending with 30the September. In the present case, the assessment year is 1950-51 under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, i.e., from April 1, 1950, to March 31,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›