Andhra Pradesh Court March 1963 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.
Indian Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works, Hyderabad Represented by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP430
Narasimham, J.1. This is an application for the issue of an appropriate writ against the State of Andhra Pradesh to forbear from enforcing the Notification, G. O. Ms. No. 1376, Revenue dated 5th September 1962, issued under the Hyderabad Intoxicating Drugs Act (Act IV of 1333 F.) (hereinafter referred as the Intoxicating Drugs Act), of rules for the manufacture, possession, sale import, export and transport of Chloral Hydrate, a drug within the meaning of the Drugs Act of 1940. One of the rules provided inter alia that the manufacture of the said drug shall be under a licence granted by the Excise Commissioner on payment of Excise duty of Rs. 500/- per annum. It would not be necessary to refer to the other specific rules.2. The petitioners, three in number, Messrs. Indian Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works, Hyderabad, Messrs. Pankaj Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works, Hyderabad and Messrs. Commercial Chemical Co., Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, are the manufacturers of the said drug under the l...
In Re: Jayaram Shivaji
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP331; 1964CriLJ13
ORDER1. Crl. R. Cs. 188, 191, 193 and 195 areErected against the conviction of the petitioner under section 123(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act while Crl. R. Cs. 189, 190, 192 and 194 arise out of his convictionunder section 7 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. 2. The petitioner in these cases is Jayaram Shivaji. It appears that four lorries belonging to the Firm M/s. Jayaram Shivaji and Sons bearing ORC 123, 59, 40 and 425 were found by the Regional Transport Officer on 21-12-1960 at about 11-20 a. m. at Mile 554/3 on the G. T. Road within the jurisdiction of the said Officer in Srikakulam District. They were found carrying some empty drums end furniture. Whereupon as they had no permit under section 42 or temporary permit under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a prosecution was launched against the owner of the vehicles undersection 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There was also prosecution under section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act as the tax contemplated under the ...
N. Sriramamurthi Vs. N. Sooramma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1963AP492
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The problem that falls to be solved in this appeal is whether Section 48 CPC is subject to Section 6 of theIndian Limitation Act.2. The facts necessary for the present enquiry are not in dispute and lie in a narrow compass. A minor, whose legal repreentative is the first respondent herein, obtained a decree against one Sarabharaju in O.S. No. 338 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kakinada, on 29-11-1935. Execution of this decree was taken out by the guardian of the minor on 12-11-1938 but the petition was dismissed as infructuous on 16-2-1939. The minor attained majority on 5-7-1949. Two years threreafter, i.e., on 31-10-1951, he filed another petition (E.P. No. 5 of 1953).3. The judgment-debtor resisted the petition on the ground that it was barred under Section 48 CPC. The decree-holder invoked Section 6 of the Limitation Act for extending the period of limitation envisaged by Section 48 CPC. However, the objection raised by the judgment-debtor...
Allada Eswarappa and anr. Vs. M. Krishna Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP99
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of Qamar Hasan, J., in C. M. S. A. No. 5 of 1957 modifying the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, made in A. S. No. 105 of 1956. The learned Judge gave leave for filing this appeal.2. The material facts lie in a short compass and may be stated as follows. The first respondent brought O. S. No. 172 of 1953 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Adoni for recovery of Rs. 1,000/- said to be due on a promissory note impleading the executant of the promissory note and his son as defendants 1 and 2 respectively. Pend-ing the suit, he filed I. A. No. 419 of 1953 for attachment before judgment of five items of immovable property. The second defendant put forward a claim to items 1, 2 and 5 as his separate properties said to have been got under a will of his paternal grandfather, while no objection was taken by him in regard to attachment of items 3 and 4. 3. The District...
Ajjarapu Subbarao Vs. Pulla Venkata Rama Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP53
Gopalakrishnan Nair, J.1. This is a plaintiff's Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, J. who, on appeal, reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The corner stone of the plaintiff's suit was the claim that he was duly adopted by the 6th defendant as his son and that as a result of this adoption he and the 6th defendant constituted a Hindu joint family which owned the suit properties. In the year 1948 when the plaintiff was away, the sister of the 6th defendant (4th defen-dent), her son-in-law (1st defendant) and her grand children (defendant No. 2) and the deceased husband of the (3rd defendant) exerted undue influence over the 6th defendant who was then physically and mentally infirm and caused him to execute a gift deed of the properties in favour of the 2nd defendant and his deceased brother. Yet actual possession of the properties continued to be with the 6th defendant till some time in August 1950.Defendants 1 to 4 trespassed upon th...
K. Laxminarayan Vs. V. Gopalaswami and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1963AP438
ORDERKumarayya, J.1. V. Gopalaswami brought big money suit on the foot of a promissory note originally in the Munsif's Court, Secunderabad on 5-12-1955, which was registered as O. S. No. 132/1 of 1955, against two defendants, the first of whom is the executant and the second the surety. Objection was taken that it being a suit of a small cause nature it should have been brought before the District Judge's Court. This plea eventually prevailed and the plaint was returned on 6-10-1956 and waspresented on the same day before the District Judge's Court, Secunderabad. On account of the integration of City Civil Court, this case thereafter was transferred to the City Small Causes Court Hyderabad, and was disposed of as S. C. No. 24/2 of 1959. The proceedings were ex parte against the 2nd defendant. Only the executant, i.e., the 1st defendant, contested the suit on the ground that the execution of the promissory note was a result of coercion and fraud. It was stated that the plaintiff had a l...
Arvapalli Ramrao Vs. Kanumarlapudi Ranganayakulu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP1
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The question to be answered by the Full Bench is as to the effect of an attachment on a prior assignment of the decree and the remedies to be pursued by the assignee decree-holder after the attachment. This problem has to be solved with reference to the statutory provisions in the shape of Order XXI, Rules 16, 53 and 58 of the C. P. C.2. Before we attempt to ascertain the precise scope and content of these provisions, we have to state a few facts necessary for this enquiry.3. One Kanamarlapudi Ranganayakulu (hereinafter referred to as the 1st respondent) obtained a money decree for Rs. 1600/- in O. S. No. 650 of 1953 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Guntur, against six persons, who figure as respondents 2 to 7 in this enquiry. On 4-10-1956, he transferred the said decree in favour of one Ramarao, the present appellant, for a consideration of Rs. 500/- under a duly stamped document. Thereafter, four persons who obtained decrees against the 1st respo...
Viryala Perraju Vs. Pilli Achanna
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP152
ORDERGopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. This revision petition raised a short but important question of limitation. The facts necessary for the purpose of appreciating the contentions raised before me are that the decree-holder who is the petitioner before me obtained a small cause decree on 23-9-1954 against the judgment-debtor who is the respondent. He filed the execution petition on 27-10-1956. He prayed for the attachment of some moveables including the animals and standing crop on Survey No. 284/1 belonging to the judgment-debtor. This execution petition, before it was numbered was returned for certain clarifications: firstly, the decree-holder was asked to state how the standing crop could be attached under Order XXI, Rule 43, Code of Civil Procedure, secondly he was asked to state as to why notice under Rule 22 was not sought before attachment. Seven days time was granted for these clarifications. The execution petition was re-presented on 8th November, 1956, after complying with the requir...
Registrar of Companies Vs. Syed Jahangir
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ447
ORDERSharfuddin Ahmed, J.1. The Vith City Magistrate has directed the return of the complaint as the offence has been committed three years ago I.e., in the year 1958. Against this, a revision was filed and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad has made, a reference for setting aside the order as in his opinion there is no provision in the Code try the return of the complaint.2. An offence under the Companies Act was committed for which a complaint was lodged by the Registrar of Companies. The learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order on the ground that the default was committed in 1958 and as such it was not tenable. There is no provision in the Companies Act which imposes any 1 limitation on the powers of the Registrar to file a complaint; even otherwise the return of the complaint is not; provided by the Criminal Procedure Code. The reference is accordingly accepted, setting asidei the order of the Magistrate and directing the Magistrate to proceed according to law,...
Chenna Reddi Veera Reddi and anr. Vs. Chillakuru Rama Chandra Reddi an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ89
ORDERMohammed Mirza, J.1. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the Judicial Mnd Class Magistrate, Gudur, promoting the 2nd petitioner herein to appear as an advocate on behalf of the 1st petitioner in P. R. C. No. 2/62 have comes up in revision before this Court.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Court of inquiry has committed an eny in applying Sections 30 and 32 of the Advocates Act in prohibiting the said Advocate of Nellore to appear on behalf of the 1st petitioner and further that it was not a case where the Court should have exercised its inherent power, I think the contention of the learned Counsel is justified-. Sections 30 and 32 under which the learned Magistrate is purported to have acted are not applicable and the Court has no power to prohibit, the appearance of any, advocate under the said sections of the Advocates Act The Bar Council is an autonomous body and Section 7 of the-said Act makes it clear that the Bar Council constitut...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »