Andhra Pradesh Court April 1963 Judgments
Prabhakara Rao H. Mawle Vs. Hyderabad State Bank
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP101
Gopalakrishnan Nair, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is from the appellate judgment dated 19th January, 1963 of our learned brother, Munikannaiah, J. The matter relates to proceedings in execution of a money decree passed against the appellant-judgment-debtor on 9-2-1952 in 0. S. 294 of 1951 on the file of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. It is necessary to trace briefly the history of these execution proceedings. The then Hyderabad State Bank instituted a money suit, 0. S. 294 of 1951, against the appellant and obtained a decree on 9-2-1952 for Rs. 6,377-7-9 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree. The Judge who passed the decree, was the Second Judge of the Hyderabad City Civil Court. The decree granted a period of six months for payment of the decretal amount. This period expired on 8-8-1952. The judgment-debtor did not pay. Therefore the decree-holder-Bank tiled execution petition No. 183/3 of 1952-53 for recovering the amount by attachment and sale of certain move...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Jamal Saheb Vs. Munwar Begum
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP188
ORDERGopal Rao Ekbote, J. 1. This revision petition Is, directed against the judgment and decree of the City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dated 22-2-61.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of appreciating the contentions raised in this revision petition are thatthe plaintiff instituted a suit for Rs. 214-35 nP. alleging inter alia that the defendant borrowed Rs. 300/- as loan without Interest from the plaintiff on 26-12-56. The defendant executed the promissory note as collateral security and also executed a receipt for Rs. 300/-. The defendant had paid Rs. 100/-; the suit therefore was laidfor the balance. The defendant denied the execution of the promissory note. He raised a plea that as the suit promissory note was not sufficiently stamped, it is not admissible In evidence, He also stated that as the suit is based on the promissory note it is liable to be dismissed.3. The learned Judge without recording the evidence, but after hearing the parties dismissed the suit folding that t...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan Vs. Sindhu Bai Sharma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1965AP81
(1) The main point in this revision raises a short but difficult question. The central facts of the case are that one Sindhu Bai filed an eviction petition against her tenant who is the petitioner before me. On the basis of a compromise, eviction order was passed in favour of Sindhu Bai on 22-9-1959. Thereby the tenant was directed to vacate on or before the end of December 1959. I am to vacate on or before the end of December 1959. I an not concerned with the terms of the compromise. After the eviction order was passed and within almost a month the said Sindhu Bai sold the premises to Arun Naik, minor, through his mother guardian. Subhadra Bai, the respondent, on 12-10-1959. As the petitioner failed to vacate as agreed to by him in the compromise and as directed by the Rent Controller, the respondent filed an application for execution of the order of the Rent Controller on 26-6-1960. When the execution order was issued, the petitioner appeared before the Rent Controller and took two d...
Tag this Judgment!Mantena Durgaraju Vs. Melam Pallam Raju and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP50
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The problem that is posed in this revision case is whether Section 78(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) governs the proviso to Section 68 of the Act.2. The facts necessary for this enquiry are few and are not in dispute. The father of respondents 1 to 3 was adjudged an insolvent in I. P. No. 21 of 1952 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Narsapur. After the vesting orderwas made, the Official Receiver sold the onefourth, undivided share belonging to the insolvent in public auction on 28-2-1961 and the petitioner purchased that share. On 25-3-1961, respondents 1 to 3, the insolvent's children, filed I. A. nO. 181 of 1961 under Section 68 of the Act to set aside the above mentioned sale. As this petition was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the proviso to Section 68 i.e., twenty-one days from the date of sale, they filed another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.A. Somasundaram Mudaliar Vs. District Collector Chittoor and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1967AP126
Narasimham, J.(1) This is an application for the issue of a Writ of mandamus directing the Special Deputy Collector for Land acquisition. Puttur, to refer the applicant's case to the Court under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (Act 1 of 1894).(2) The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this application are briefly these: An extent of Ac. 4-70 cents of land in Satrawada village in Puttur Taluk was acquired for a public purpose. The land acquisition officer awarded compensation to the petitioner and another. for the petitioner's share he awarded Rs.13,177-49 Np. A sum of Rupees 1,395-27 Nps. was awarded to the other person who had interest in the land. The award was pass0 after due enquiry. The petitioner received the bill drawn on the treasury for the amount payable to him the same day at 10-30 A.M., without protest. Later at 3-30 P.M. he appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and filed a petition disputing the amount of compensation awarded to him an...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council, Masulipatam Represented by Executive Authority ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP360
Jaganmohan Reddy, J. 1. This second appeal involves the question of interpretation of Section 350 of the District Municipalities Act and having regard to the provisions of the said Act also the question whether the suit is barred by limitation. The appellant is the Municipal Council, Masulipatam, represented by its Executive authority. The respondent (Plaintiff) is-the Secretary of the Coffee Meals and Hotel Association and the Proprietor of Amba Bhavan Meals and Coffee Club. It is the case of the plaintiff that from the year 1952 there were some disputes-between the Municipality on the one hand and the Association and himself on the other regarding collection of certain taxes, that with regard to the levy of license fee and taxes the appellant cut off the water supply on 26-12-1952 on the ground that there was leakage in the water connection to the meter and that in spite of notices he did not pay the amount and consequently it was cut off. In respect of this alleged unauthorised disc...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ramalingeswara Rice and Oil Mill Co. Ltd. Vs. the Additional Incom ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP74
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. This case is referred to a Bench by Ananthanarayana Ayyar, J., as he thought that it raises a question of general and public importance and there should be an authoritative pronouncement.2. The civil revision petition is brought against the order of the Subordinate judge, Tenali, accepting E. A. No. 284 of 1959, a petition filed by the Income-tax Officer, Tenali, for the issue of a cheque for Rs. 3,281.88 nP. being the arrears of income-tax due by the judgment-debtor out of Rs. 12,500/- in deposit in Court to the credit of O. S. No. 88 of 1955.3. The circumstances leading to this litigation are these. O. S. No. 88 of 1055 was instituted by the petitioner against the second respondent herein (Jainullabdin Saheb) for eviction from the factory which the latter was holding on lease. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed I. A. No. 1899 of 1955 under Order 40, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code for the appointment of receiver to take possession of the factory ...
Tag this Judgment!Dantu Bhaskararao Vs. C.V.K. Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP77
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. The interpretation of Section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is involved in this appeal directed against the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Eluru.2. The facts that are necessary for this enquiry are few and are not in dispute. The appellant and the respondent along with two others contested the general elections held in 1962 from Kakinada constituency of Andhra Pradesh. At the time of scrutiny of the nominations, an objection was raised by one of the contestants that the appellant was disqualified under Section 7(d) of the Act by reason of his holding a mining licence and also a prospecting licence from the Govenment of AndbraPradesh. This objection did not find favour with the Returning Officer with the result that the nomination paper was accepted.3. The poll took place in February and ultimately the appellant was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh. Shortly thereafter, one of the defeated...
Tag this Judgment!B. Kamala Devi Vs. Ramachandrigee and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP222
1. The question that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether a person claiming to be in possession of a property as a protected tenant and dispossessed in execution of a decree, could invoke Order 21, Rule 100 C.P.C. and whether the court could direct restoration of possession to such a person. 2. The facts leading to this litigation are in order as follows: A protected tenancy certificate was issued to dents 1 and 2 in or about the year 1952. It is anegeu on their behalf that they had been in possession of the property both before and after the issue of the certencare. The pattadar sold the hording on 23-10-1960 for an aneged consideration of Rs. 8,000/- to the petitioner. On the basis of the sale, an action Was raised by the petitioner on 31-3-1961. On receipt of summons, the venaor appeared in Court and submitted to a decree and it was passed on19-4-1361. It appears that execution was not men out immediately for the reason that the crops raised by the res...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Misribai Legal Representative of Late Rajeswar Pershad, Proprieto ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP274
ORDERChandrasekhara Sastry, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife and the legal representative of late Kameshwar Pershad residing at Hyderabad, who is an assesses under the Income-tax Act. On 30-3-1959, Rameshwar Pershad was assessed for the assessment year 1958-59 and on 30-9-1958 for the assessment year 1957-58 and also for the assessment year 1956-57 in his individual status. He had also an interest in a firm called 'M/s.. Kishanlal Oil Mills' and at the time of the original assessments, his share of tile income therefrom was tentatively fixed with the proviso that the assessment would be rectified under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1924 after the assessment of the firm would be completed. Subsequently, the assessment of the firm was completed and on the basis of that, the assessments of Sri Rameshwar Pershad for the years 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59 were rectified on 7-3-1963. As a result of this rectification, the assessee had to pay Rs. 6,142-50 np. for the year 1956-57, Rs. 8,0...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »