Andhra Pradesh Court March 1962 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.
Vazir Ali Vs. M. Shankariah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1964AP91; (1962)IILLJ636AP
Satyanarayana Raju, J. 1. This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of Certiorari quashing the order of the District Judge, Nalgonda, by which he reversed, on appeal, an order of the Returning Officer of the Nalgonda City Municipality.2. The material facts lie within a brief compass and are for the most part uncontroverted. For the purpose of holding elections to the Town Committee of the Nalgonda Town Municipality, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification calling upon all the constituencies to elect members in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act (XVIII of 1956) (hereinafter called, 'the Act'). The petitioner, the 1st respondent and two others filed their nominations for one of the constituencies. At the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers, objection was taken by the 1st Respondent to the nomination of the petitioner as a candidate on the ground that he was a pensioner of the State ...
Kotak and Company Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC709(AP)
Venkatesam, J.1. This tax revision case is preferred against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, in Tribunal Appeal No. 392 of 1960 on its file.2. The facts necessary for an appreciation of the contentions of the petitioner are briefly these. The assessee M/s. Kotak & Co., at Adoni, are dealers in cotton. For the assessment year 1958-59, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax by the assessing authority (Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool) on a turnover of Rs. 8,50,053-74 nP. and the said order having been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantapur, the matter was carried in appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which confirmed the orders of the departmental authorities. Against that decision the above revision was preferred.3. A number of contentions appear to have been raised before the Tribunal. But the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C. Kondaiah, made only two submissions, viz., (1) that the Tribunal ought to have allowed by wa...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Vattem Venkatramayya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP106; 1963CriLJ283; [1962(5)FLR180]; (1962)IILLJ21AP
Krishna Rao, J. 1. This appeal, which has been referred to a Division Bench by Sharfuddin Ahmed, J., as he dissented from the decisions in Public Prosecutor v. Mangaldas Thakker, 1957-2 Andh WR 455: (AIR 1958 Andh Pra 79), and Lakshmaiah Naidu v. State, : AIR1959AP536 , raises questions as to the construction and effect of Section 117 of the Factories Act (LXIII of 1948), hereinafter called the Act. 2. The material facts are briefly these. At 12.30 p.m. on 14-7-1959, the Additional Inspector of Factories at Gudivada (P. W. 1) visited the factory known as 'Sri, Rama Seshasayi Rice Mill' and found one woman worker by name Karra Lakshmamma, working at the paddy sieve. This was beyond the period of work from 8.30 A.M. to 12 noon fixed for her beforehand under Section 61 and was, therefore, a contravention of Section 63 of the Act. Consequently, the respondent, who was the manager of the factory, was prosecuted for having committed an offeree punishable under Section 92 of the Act. The resp...
Batti FakruddIn Saheb and Sons Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC822(AP)
Satyanakayana Raju, J.1. This tax revision case raises a question as to the true scope and interpretation of Section 14 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, which reads :When making an assessment to the best of judgment under Sub-section (1) the assessing authority may also direct the dealer to pay in addition to the tax assessed, a penalty not exceeding one and half times the tax due on the turnover that was not disclosed by the dealer in his return.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that the turnover referred to in the sub-section means only the 'actual' turnover that was not disclosed and not the estimated turnover. This contention is manifestly unsound. It should be remembered that under Section 14, the assessing authority is not compelled to limit the estimate of the turnover to the transactions which may have been deliberately suppressed. It is open to the assessing authority to make an estimate of the turnover. It is reasonable to infer that j...
Kumari Rangappa Vs. Reddi Govinda Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP228
Syed Qamar Hasan, J. 1. This is a second appeal in execution preferred by the second judgment-debtor against the judgment and order dated 30-3-1959 of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, who in his appellate jurisdiction affirmed the order of the District Munsif, Adoni, holding the E. P. 252/56 in O. S. No. 59/51 in time.2. The facts are not much in dispute. O. S. 59/51 on the file of the District Munsif, Dhone resulted in a decree on 26-4-1952 against the appellant and the 3rd respondent and in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondents hereinafter to be referred to as decree-holders. Before any steps for execution were taken by the decree-holders, the appellant filed I. P. 26/53 in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Bellary. During the pendency of the insolvency proceeding, the decree-holder filed E. A. 18/53 on 27-1-1953 before the District Munsif, Dhone for transmission of the decree to the Court of the District Munsif, Adoni. The application was ordered and they filed E. P. 111of 19...
D.R. Adinarayanaswamy Vs. Girraju Papamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP121
Venkatesam, J.1. These two appeals, Nos. 84 of 1958 and 348 of 1958 are against a common judgment of the Dist. J., Anantapur, in O. S. Nos. 18 of 1957 and 45 of 1957 respectively. The earlier suit was for partition of the plaint schedule lands, and separate possession of 2/5th share, while the latter was for the recovery of profits in respect of the same lands. Parties are the same in both the suits.2. One Dugga Ramanna of Dhannavaram had four wives. By his second wife, he had two sons, plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein, while by his fourth wife he had five daughters, viz., Papamma (D-1), Subbamma (deceased), Lakshmamma (D-2), Ran-gamma and Alavelamma. Ramanna died in or about 1926 and before his death, he executed a registered will, Ex. A-14 dated 15-8-1924, where-under he bequeathed the suit lands called Koneru Madi, covered by old Survey No. 583, New Survey No. 442, measuring 5 acres 33 cents, and bearing an assessment of Rs. 47/- to his five daughters absolutely to be taken by them in equa...
immidisetti Ramakrishnaiah Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC914(AP)
Venkatesam, J.1. This tax revision case is directed against the order by majority of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, in T.A. No. 159 of 1960 on its file. The relevant facts may shortly be stated thus:2. The year of assessment in this case is 1953-54. The original order of assessment was made on 12th March, 1955, and served on the assessee-petitioner on 1st April, 1955. On 8th March, 1957, the assessing authority issued a notice to show cause why he should not be re-assessed on the escaped turnover, and the same was served on the assessee on 9th March, 1957. Against the said order, the assessee filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 170 of 1957), and in C.M.P. No. 1999 of 1957 he obtained an order from this Court on 18th March, 1957, restraining the Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam (the assessing authority) to proceed further with the revision of assessment until further orders on the writ petition. The writ petition was eventually dismissed by the High Court on 18th February...
Tandapu Sambayya Vs. Cherukuri Venkateswarlu and Others.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR69(AP)
The question, how far the prohibition contained in section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 affects the mode of proof by a plaintiff of the joint family status of the defendants, is raised in this revision petition.A few facts leading to the filing of this revision are the following :The plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein, filed O.S. No. 77 of 1960, on the file of the court of the subordinate judge, Bapatla, for recovery of sums given by him to the first defendant for carrying on tobacco trade by him. He joined the son of the first defendant as second defendant and his brothers as defendants Nos. 3 and 4 to the suit. The defendants pleaded that the liability by the first defendant was not incurred by the first defendant as manager of the joint family and that as there was a partition even in January, 1955, they could not be proceeded against in this suit. Therefore, in order to prove the contention of the plaintiff that all the defendants constituted members of a Hindu joint f...
In Re: Nomula Laxminarayana
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ517
ORDERAnantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. These two revision cases have been filed by one Nomula Lakshminaraya. In Cri.R.C. No. 81 of 1962, he prays for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 1239 of 1961 on the file of the IVth City Magistrate, Hyderadad for setting aside the order of the Chief City Magistrate, Hyderabad in Cri.R.P. No. 455 of 1961 and for discharging him. In Cri.R.C. No, 82 of 1962, he prays for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 1240 of 1961 on ' the file of the IVth City Magistrate, Hyderabad, for setting aside the order of the Chief City Magistrate, Hyderabad in Cri.R.P. No. 456 of 1961 and for discharging him. After giving notice to the Public Prosecutor, these two petitions were heard together by common consent and this common order is passed by me.2. The relevant facts in Cri.R.C. No. 81 of 1962 are substantially similar to those concerned in Cri.R.C. No. 82 of 1962. In fact, though the learned IVth City Magistrate passed two separate orders, the learned Chief City Magis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›