Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the District Collector, Krishna ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP140
Seshachalapati, J.1. These four connected appeals arise out of O. S. Nos. 31 and 33 of 1956, which were tried together with another suit (O. S. No. 61 of 1957) and a common judgment rendered on 28-9-1957. The two suits (O. S. Nos. 31 and 33 of 1956) were filed under the following circumstances:2. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 31 of 1956 and the plaintiff in O. S. No. 33 of 1956 are motor transport operators plying their vehicles in the Krishna District. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 43 (1) (ii) fixed by a notification the maximum fare for passengers at seven pies per mile, and fares were being collected by the plaintiffs at that rate. In 1952, the composite State of Madras enacted the Madras Motor Vehicles (Taxation of a Passengers and Goods) Act XVI of 1952, which came into force on 1-2-1953. Section 3 of the said Act provided that a tax of nine pies in the rupee be levied and collected on passengers and goods on the fares and freights payable to the operat...
Survepalli Siddaiah Vs. Survepalli Penchalamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP158
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The point involved in this appeal beats on the applicability of the doctrine of Res Judicata to proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act.2. The appellant, who is the husband of the respondent, applied for a decree for judicial separation against his wife in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kavali, on the allegation that she had deserted him some years before the institution of the petition.3. The petition was opposed by the wife inter alia on the plea that a prior decision, rendered by the District Munsif's Court, Kavali, that the husband had abandoned his wife and therefore the latter was entitled to separate maintenance operated as res judicata in the subsequent proceedings. This issue was tried as a preliminary one and it was found in favour of the respondent, the wife. In this view of the matter, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition filed by the Husband under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is this view of the Subordinate Judge that is imp...
Ayilada Appalanaidu Vs. Ranuthu Chinnam Naidu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP14
ORDERMunikannaiah, J.1. This batch Revision Petitions have been filed by the tenants who succeeded in getting the suits filed for recovery of rents stayed by application of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These tenants have succeeded in making out that O. S. NOB., 82, 87, 88, 89, 219 of 59 and Small Cause Suit No. 213 of 1959 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Eajam, pending against them cannot be tried pending the disposal of Second Appeal No. 448 of 59 which culminated out of O. S. No. 589 of 1953 on the file of the same Court as in both sets of causes, the matter in issue is also directly and substantially the same. All these suits, it may be pointed out, are filed by the landlord for recovery of rents in respect of the same properties but for successive years. Though the petitioners thus obtained orders staying the . trial of these suits, they complain by filing the present Revision_ Petitions that the Lower Court imposed certain 'terms which are illegal and sh...
Managing Director, Hindustan Shipyard Private Ltd., Visakhapatnam Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP71
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This is a revision petition against the decree of the District Munsif. Visakhapatnam in S. C. S. No. 839 of 1958 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for a sum of Rs. 500/-.2. The respondent entered into a contract with the petitioner for removal of timber scrap in the ship-yard of the petitioner for a period of six months on terms and conditions which need not be set out here. He deposited Rs. 200/- along with his tender and another sum of Rs. 300/- after his tender was accepted for the due performance of the contract. It was inter alia provided in the tender notice that the successful tenderer would be called upon to pay a further sum ot Rs. 300/- as security deposit for the due fulfilment of the contract and it would be refunded to him after the completion of the contract and that the tender deposit of the successful tenderer would be refunded to him after satisfactory completion of the contract. The terms of the tender notice were incorporated in the contract tha...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Koneru Suryanarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP94
Seshachelapathi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 67 of 1953 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Masulipatam. The suit was brought by Koneru Survanarayana and Vemulapalli Subbayya (respondents 1 and 2 in the present appeal) on behalf of all the owners of the lands covered by patta No. 50 of Bobberlanka village, claiming possession of an extent of 32 acres of land marked in the colour yellow in the plan attached to the plaint on the ground that the said land was a lateral accretion to their pre-existing lands situate in an island in the Krishna river. The 1st defendant to the action is the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Collector, Krishna, The 7th defendant is the Field Labour Co-operative Society, Kokkoligadda permitted by the 1st defendant to occupy whole or portions of the disputed land. Defendants 2 to 6 are office-bearers of the said Co-operative society.2. The plaintiffs arc all residents of the Bobberlanka village. T...
Hyderabad Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC812(AP)
Venkatesam, J.1. This tax revision case is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, in T.A. No. 467 of 1960 on its file. The only question argued is, whether the price of the goods supplied, viz., the sugar-cane fertilizer mixture (for brevity called the fertilizer mixture) is Rs. 308-98 nP., or Rs. 122-50 nP. per ton. The assessing authority and the Tribunal held that the price of the fertilizer mixture was an all-inclusive price of Rs. 308-98 nP., and the turnover was calculated on that basis.2. The facts relevant for an appreciation of the contention raised are as follows: The assessee, the Hyderabad Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Secunderabad (hereinafter called 'the assessee company'), a joint stock company, are manufacturers of the fertilizer mixture. During the assessment year 1957-58, it effected sales of the said mixture, among others, to the Nizam Sugar Factory Limited (hereinafter called 'the sugar factory'), which is also a joint stock ...
D. Heerabai and anr. Vs. Official Receiver, Krishna and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP296
ORDERMunikanniah, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the orders in I. A. No. 1900 of 1960 in I. P. No. 29 of 1955 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, which as the insolvency Court it had to deal with the Game.2. The short question, which arose for decision by the lower Court, is whether this application, namely, 1. A. No. 1900 of 1960, is exclusively an appeal under Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and as such cannot be filed beyond the period of 21 days, after the sale by the Official Receiver of certain properties as conditioned by the proviso to that section.3. The determination of this question, it should be observed, is mainly dependent upon the factors which have to be taken into consideration by any insolvency Court whether the act complained of had been a matter which the Official Receiver had power to decide upon and which act could therefore be legitimately complained of and taken to the Court for further adjudication.This qu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›