Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
Misri Bai Vs. Income-tax Officer, Hyderabad.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-1963
Reported in: [1964]51ITR487(AP)
The petitioner is the wife and the legal representative of late Rameshwar Pershad residing at Hyderabad, who is an assessee under the Income-tax Act. On May 30, 1959, Rameshwar Pershad was assessed for the assessment year 1958-59 and on September 30, 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 Messrs. Kishanlal Oil Mills and at the time of the original assessments, his share of the income therefrom was tentatively fixed with the proviso that the assessment would be rectified under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, after the assessment of the firm was 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 March 7, 1963. As a result of this rectification, the assessee had to pay Rs. 6,142.50 nP. for the year 1956-57, Rs. 8,074.50 nP. for ...
Public Prosecutor Vs. J.P. Sanghi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP276; 1964CriLJ642a
Kumarayya, J.1. These 10 revision cases raise a short point as to We applicability of the provisions of the Code of criminal Procedure of 1898 to the proceedings started after 1-4-1351 In relation to the offences under Penal code committed prior to that date in the territory included in the erstwhile Hyderabad State. The IVth City Magistrate as also the Chief City Magistrate, Hyderabad are of the view that notwithstanding the fact that the said Code has come into force in the Hyderabad State from that date, the repealed Hyderabad Criminal procedure Code shall continue to govern the proceedings of this kind as though the Cods of 1898 had not come Into force. They rely for this proposition on the decision of a single judge of this court In Re: Sri Ram Shastry, : AIR1960AP375 , of course there are authorities of Division Bench as also of Full Bench of the erstwhile Hyderabad High Court (see Jayarama Iyer v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1954 Hyd 56 at p. 60 and Waheed Hasan v. State of Hyderaba...
In Re: Dharamartapu Papiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ584
Krishnarao, J.1. These appeals arise out of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam sentencing the 1st accused Dharamarapu Papiah to imprisonment for life Under Section 302, I, P. C. and accused 2 and 3, Dharamarapu Paramma and Naupadu Mutyalu, to imprisonment for life Under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC for the murder of one Dharamarapu Apparao, at about midnight on 12-5-1960. The deceased was the 1st accused's elder brother and the 3rd accused their sister. The and accused was related to them as a grand-mother. The case for the prosecution is briefly that a quarrel took place between the deceased on the one hand and accused 1 to 3 on the other at about 7-30 P.M. on 12-5-60, and that while the deceased was fast asleep at about midnight on a mattress in front of his house, the 2nd accused held his head and the 3rd accused held his legs and the 1st accused cut his neck, with a knife (M. O. 1). The learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the only dire...
Gultupalli Hanumayya and ors. Vs. Ravella Venkata Subbayya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP68
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The question that calls for decision in this case is whether the Court having territorial jurisdiction Over the mortgaged properties could entertain a petition for execution of a decree passed by another Court which ceased to have territorial jurisdiction but which still exists, in the absence of a notification transferring the business or an order under Section 24 or Section 39, C. P. C.2. A decree was passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Guntur, against the appellants in O. S. No. 33 of 1961. Subsequently, execution of this decree levied. Sometime later, a Subordinate Judge's Court was established at Narsaraopet and its jurisdiction included the villages in which the properties sought to be proceeded against are situate. Having regard to this fact and notwithstanding the continued existence of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Guntur, the decree-holder filed execution petitions giving rise to this appeal, the judgment-debtors formulated an objection that the ...
Kallakuri Ranganayakamma and ors. Vs. Kallakuri Raja Rajeswaramma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP380
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of O. S. No. 48 of 1957 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Narasapur, brought by defendants 1 to 8 therein. 2. The suit was raised by the senior widow of one Ananda Rao, who died on 18-3-1954, leaving behind him the plaintiff, the first defendant (his junior widow), four sons and three daughters and considerable properties, for partition of the properties left by him into ten shares and for separate possession of one share to her and for accounts and profits. 3. The action was resisted by the defendants, namely, the junior widow of Anandarao and his sons and daughters, inter alia on the pleas that the plaintiff was disentitled to claim the relief of partition for the reason that the statute under which she could claim the right was repealed, that sha had given up all her rights to claim partition under the compromise entered into between herself and her husband in or about the year 1913 and that she was not entitled to a share in...
Sheik HussaIn and Sons Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP36
Satyanarayana Raju, J.1. These petitions have been posted before a Full Bench because of a conflict of opinion between the decisions of two Division Benches of this Court, namely Ramamurthy Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, : AIR1961AP344 and Narasimha Rao v. State of Madras (Now Andhra) (Un'reported Judgment in W. P. 462 of 1953, D/-29th July, 1955).2. One of these petitions, W. P. No. 84 of I960, was referred to a Division Bench by Mr. Justice Seshachalapathi. The Division Bench, consisting of Mr. Justice Jaganmohan Reddy and Mr. Justice Ananthanarayana Ayyar, referred that petition and the connected cases for the decision of a Full Bench.3. These petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution, are for the issue of Writs of Certiorari to quash the orders of the State Government under the Motor Vehicles Act. All of them raise identical questions for determination.4. It is enough to set out the material facts in W. P. No. 84 of 1960. The petitioner therein is a transport operator hav...
G. Ramachandraiah Chetty Vs. State of Andhra
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP13
Chandra Reddy, C. J.1. The question that poses itself in this appeal is whether the institution of a suit to vacate an order under Order 38, Rule 8 C. P. C. would proprio vigore operate in favour of the decree-holder to enable him to exclude the time contemplated by Section 15 of the Limitation Act.2. The facts leading to this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are not in dispute and lie in a narrow compass. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,680/- and also applied for attachment before judgment of certain properties as belonging to the appellant. One of the items of property attached was claimed by his wife as her own and not as part of the property belonging to the appellant. The claim was disallowed in 1953. Ultimately, a decree was entered in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on 21-11-1953. Meanwhile, the appellant's wife raised an action under Order 21, Rule 63 C. P. C. to vacate the order made by the trial Court under Order 38, Rule 8 C. P....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›