Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Gottety Venkata Rao Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP288
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of our learned brother, Basi Reddi, J., dismissing W. P. No. 1444 of 1958.2. The point raised In the writ petition and in the appeal before us is whether land-cess could be levied under Section 78 of the Madras District Beards Act, 1920 on royalty in respect of a mining lease. The appellant had taken on lease from the Government an iron ore mine. Land-cess was levied on the basis of the rent payable by the appellant to the lessor, the Government. It was urged before our learned brother that no land cess could be imposed on the basis of the rent payable by him and that, secondly, the District Board had no power to levy cess after the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 was passed. This argument was based on Section 7G-A of the Madras District Boards Act, 1920. The learned Judge negatived both the contentions, the first one having been covered by the judgment of this Court in Murthy H.R.S. v. Collector of Chi...
Malla Reddy (E.) Vs. Southern Railway (by the Divisional Operating Sup ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-1962
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ586AP
ORDERP. Chandra Reddi, C.J.1. The petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the dismissal of the petitioner made on 8 February 1961.2. The petitioner was an assistant goods clerk alt Tenali railway station in the year 1960. While there, the following two charges were framed against him on 8 April 1960:While you were working as senior assistant goods clerk, from 1 July 1959 onwards at Tenali railway station, you failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty inasmuch as you demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 35 on 11 November 1969, from Sri T. Hanuman Das of Tenali for the twenty wagons unloaded and thereby contravened Rule 3 of the Railway (Servants) Conduct Rules, 1956.During the above period, while you were working as senior assistant goods clerk at Tenali railway station, you committed misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty has much as boa habitually demanded and obtained illegal gratification ran...
Kopparthi Satyanarayana Vs. Smt. Kopparti Seetharamamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP270
Chandra Reddy C.J. 1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether Clause (4) of Section 2, Hindu Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act (19 of 1946) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is applicable only if the husband contracts a marriage after the Act or whether the words 'marries again' are merely descriptive of the position of the husband as a twice married man at the date when the proceedings are taken under the Act, and they do not exclude from their operation the husband, who has taken a second wife before the Act. This point arises in all these appeals, some preferred by the wives and others by the husbands. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the husbands as appellants and the wives as respondents.2. The answer to this question turns upon the interpreation of Clause (4) of Section 2 of the Act. That section is in these words;'2. Notwithstanding any custom or law to the contrary, a Hindu married woman shall be entitled to separate residence ...
Xavier Pascal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Ministry of Railways by Its Se ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-1962
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ584AP
Krishna Rao, J.1. The substantial question which arises for decision in this second appeal is whether the order, Ex. A. 1 dated 10 October 1957, made by the Works Manager of the Central Railway at Secunderabad dispensing with the appellant's services is Justiciable.The order reads as follows:Sri Xavier Pascal is attaining the age of superannuation 65 years, on 11 October 1957. He should, therefore, be put off duty from 11 October 1947 until the question of his nationality is finally decided by the General Manager.It is Been from the order that the appellant's services were dispensed with on the ground that he had attained the age of superannuation, viz., 55 years. Admittedly the poet of maistry in the Works Manager's office which was held by the appellant, comes within the expression 'civil post under the Union' in Article 310 of the Constitution. He therefore holds office during the pleasure of the Precedent, 'except as expressly provided by the Constitution.' The order is not one of ...
Asis Khatoon Vs. Suraya Begum
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP13
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The question raised by this reference is whether poundage could be collected even in respect of sales effected by private treaty under Order 21, Rule 83 Civil Procedure Code.2. In the instant case, the house of the judgment-debtor was attached on 4-7-1952 in E. P, No. 41/3/52-53. Subsequently, the judgment-debtor applied to the executing Court for permission to sell the attached property through private auctioneers. Permission was accorded in the following words:'Permission is given to effect private sale within one month. The sale amount to the extent of the decree should be deposited in the Court. Certificate be issued accordingly.'3. Pursuant to this permission, auction was held privately and the sale amount was deposited into Court. Out of this, a sum of Rs. 903-3-3 was deducted and credited to the Government as the sale commission. The application giving rise to this reference was made by the judgment-debtor for refund of this amount on the ground that the...
Silk Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-1962
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ591AP
ORDERNarasimham, J.1. The Sir Silk Ltd., Sirpur. Kaghaznagar, is the petitioner. The respondent 1 is the industrial tribunal. The respondent 2 is the union of workers of the petitioner company. The petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the industrial tribunal, the respondent 1 herein, dated 20 June 1960 toy which the industrial tribunal held that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matters referred to it by the Government tinder Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. It is contended for the petitioner inter alia that the matters referred for decision by the industrial tribunal were covered by the binding settlements between the parties, viz., the employer, Sir Silk, Ltd., and the workers represented by the Sir Silk Employees' Union and therefore the tribunal was precluded from deciding the same matters.3. On objections to jurisdiction being taken by the petitioner before the industrial tribunal, issues were framed in ...
Somaraju Sree Rama Mohana Rao Vs. Somaraju Thulasi Prasada Rao and anr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP390
ORDERMunikannaiah, J. 1. The order of the Subordinate Judge of Khammammeth refusing to grant permission to the plaintiff in Suit No. 11/1 of 1958 to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit, is questioned in this revision petition.2. The array of the parties in this suit and the purpose fur which this suit was filed need mention. The plaintiff is a minor and is a son of the 1st defendant. The minor plaintiff has been adopted to the brother of the 1st defendant. The adoptive mother of the minor plaintiff filed this suit to set aside a gift deed executed by his natural father, the 1st defendant, in favour of the 2nd defendant who is the sister of the 1st defendant. Though more than two years have elapsed since the filing of the suit, the trial of the suit has not gone on. On 16-12-1959, an application under Order 23, Rule 1, C. P. C. was filed by the next friend of the minor plaintiff. The next friend alleged in it that the defendant obviously meaning the 1st defendant made...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›