Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Public Prosecutor Vs. Seetharamapuram Mines (by Mines Manager)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-1963
Reported in: (1963)IILLJ493AP
Mohamed Mirza, J.1. The State has filed this appeal against the order of the Judicial Second-class Magistrate, Gurazala, acquitting the respondent for contravention of the rules under the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956.2. The conciliation officer (Central), Visakhapatnam, who is also an inspector under the Payment of Wages Act, filed a complaint alleging that he inspected the Seetharamapuram Mines on 24 January 1961 under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and Payment of Wages (Mines; Rules, 1956, and handed over a copy of the inspection report No. PW (O)/COV-(1)/61, dated 24 January 1961, to the mines manager, employer within the meaning of the Act, for having contravened the following rules :(i) non-maintenance of register of wages for monthly paid staff at the workspot as required under Rule 5 of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956;(ii) non-display of notice showing rates of wages as required under Rule 8(1)(ii) of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1955; and(iii) non-submi...
Andhra Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Vs. State of Andhra Prade ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP363; (1963)IILLJ488AP
ORDERGopalakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner who is an employer seeks a writ of Prohibition to restrain the Labour Court, Guntur, from taking proceedings in pursuance of the reference dated 2-12-1961 made by the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as the Act).2. The main ground on which this Writ Petition is rested is that the Government had no jurisdiction to make the impugned order of reference at a time when two valid awards made by the same Labour Court in I. D. No. 33 of 1960 and I. D. No. 23 of 1961 on previous references by the Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act, were in operation. The two prior awards were published by the Government in the official gazette on 12-10-1961. Under Section 19(3) of the Act those awards would remain in operation till 11-11-1962. Even thereafter they would continue to bind the parties unless and until a period of two months has elapsed from the date on which notice is given by one o...
Ketharaju Rajeshwari Vs. Kanthamraju Varalakshmamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP284
Gopalrao Ekbote, J. 1. The action out of which this second appeal has arisen was laid by the 1st respondent who is the plaintiff before the District Munsif, Guntur for recovery of possession of certain lands and for Rs. 200/- as amount due for Makta for the year 1954-55 and for future mesne profits. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the suit property belonged to one Pulliah who under a will conveyed the title to his wife Venkayamma. After Pulliah's death, Venkayamma became the absolute owner of the suit property. As there was no one to look after Venkayamma she looked for help to her brother, Lingiah. As a consideration for the assistance and service Venkayamma conveyed the suit property to her brother, Lingiah through a gift deed dated 13-6-1924 and put Lingiah in possession. Although Venkayamma had adopted a boy, Sitaramanjaneyula, but the suit property was not vested in the adopted boy.It was alleged that as the adopted son did not look after Venkayarnma, Lingiah executed a settl...
Karumuri Seetharamayya Vs. Patcha Peraiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP545
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The applicability of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 falls for determination in this second appeal.The 1st defendant, who is the appellant, is the 3rd wife of one K. Brahmiah, who died in December 1943. The 2nd plaintiff is the daughter of said Brahmiah by the first wife and the 1st plaintiff is her husband. They filed the suit for a declaration that the appellant 1st defendant has only a life interest in the suit property and that the sale by her under Ex. A-2 to the 2nd defendantis not binding beyond her lifetime. The contention of the first defendant is that under the terms of a compromise entered into between herself and the 1st plaintiff in O. S. No. 319 of 1944 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Narsaraopeta, dated 30-3-1945 (Ex. A-5), her right to a limited estate was recognised, that as such Section 14(1) of the Act becomes applicable and she gets an absolute interest in the property and consequently her sale in favour of the 2nd def...
Susheela Vs. R. Jagannadham
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP247
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, dismissing a petition under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for granting a permanent alimony of Rs. 100/- per mensem. 2. In O. P. No. 73 of 1959, the appellant sought dissolution of her marriage on the ground of impotency of the husband. She also prayed for permanent alimony at a particular rate. While granting a decree for dissolution of marriage, the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, disallowed the claim for permanent alimony, as no evidence was led by the wife regarding the circumstances which would justify the grant of permanent alimony. These orders have become final, as neither party has questioned that part of the judgment which went against him or her. Sometime later, the application giving rise to this appeal was filed. 3. The trial Judge dismissed the petition for the grant of permanent alimony and observed: 'It is purely within the discretion of the Court to grant alimony or...
C.V.K. Rao Vs. Dantu Bhaskararao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP185
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. The question to be answered by the Full bench is whether an appeal under Section 116B of the Representation of the People Act is a Civil proceeding for the purpose of Article 133 of the Constitution . Thisreference has been necessitated by a divergence of judicial opinion.2. A few facts relevant in the context of this enquiry may be narrated me respondent was declaredelected to the Andhra pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Kakinada constituency at the general election field in 1962. The legality of this election was challenged before the Election Tribunal, Rajanmundry, by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent had incurred the disqualification under Section 7(d) the Representation of the People Act. Hisabjection prevailed with the Election Tribunal with the result that the election was set aside. On appeal by the aggrieved respondent, two of us constituting a Division Bench reversed that decision and upheld the election in the view that the postulate...
D.K. Aswathanarayanaiah Vs. Nallapula Sanjeeviah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1965AP33
(1) These second appeals raise a short but an important question as to whether a lease deed, which provides an increase of rent after a lapse of a particular period, is illegal and therefore cannot be enforced in a court of law. (2) The main facts, which give rise to this question, briefly stated are follows: The plaintiff-respondent in S. A. 73 of 1960 filed a suit for a sum of Rs. 2,950/- on the basis of accounts. It was alleged inter alia in the plaint that the plaintiff was carrying on business under the name and style of 'Nallapula Sanjeeviah and Sons' at Hindupur. He took a house on rent from the defendant and executed Ex. B. 14, the Rent note dated 15-5-1946. According to the said Rent note the rent fixed was Rs. 300/- per year for three years. There was a further stipulation that in case the plaintiff continued to occupy the house after the lapse of three years, he would have to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per year. It was stated by the plaintiff that there were dealing w...
Mettupalli China Kondappa (Died) by L. Rs. Chinna Venkatareddy and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP168; 1964CriLJ391
ORDERKumarayya, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the Munsif-Magistrate, Wanaparthy, acted without jurisdiction in pitting his final order under Section 145 Cr. P. C. even though there was no preliminary order passed under Section 145(1) Cr. P. C.2. The proceedings were initiated in the Court of the Executive Magistrate, Narayanpet, on the report of the police, Devarakadra which was made at the instance of the first-party, respondent herein. As soon as that report was received, a clerk in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer (Executive Magistrate), Narayanpet, submitted a note on 3-11-1960, which is to the following effect:'Sir, F. I. R. No. 39/60 issued by the Sub-Inspector (of police) Devarakadra, may kindly be perused. Today he has submitted the charge-sheet No. 18/60 under Section 145 Cr. P. C. in which (the) sworn statement of the Sub Inspector is to be recorded by the Executive Magistrate. The report submitted by the Sub Inspecto...
Kancherla Achiraju Vs. Kusumanchi Rayalu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP498
1. This revision petition arises out of an application filed by the respondent-creditor, K. Rayulu, under Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, hereinafter called the Act, for adjudicating as insolvents the 2nd respondent herein which is a firm and the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4, who are the partners of the above-said firm. The central facts are as follows:-It was alleged in the petition that the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are the partners of the firm which is the 2nd respondent here. The partners acting on De-half of the firm borrowed for the respondent-firm Rs. 13,000/- on 6-1-1951 and executed a promissory note which was subsequently renewed on 2-1-1954 for Rs. 16,962-9-0. They also borrowed a further sum of Rs. 5,500 on 4-1-54 for which another promissory note was executed in favour of the respondent. The partners did not pay that amount. Several individual acts of insolvency were alleged against the partners and a joint act of insolvency against all the partn...
Yellamanchili Veera Raghavayya Vs. Madduri Venkata Subbaraya Sastri an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP94
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is filed by an auction-purchaser against the order of San-jeeva Row Nayudu, J. setting aside that of the District Judge, East Godavari, dismissing a petition filed by the first respondent herein under Order 21, Rule 89, C. P.C.2. The facts material for this enquiry lie in a brief compass and are not in dispute. In execution of a decree obtained by Jaggayya, the second respondent, against the vendor of the first respondent, several Items of proper-lies belonging to the latter were brought to sale. In the proclamation of sale issued under Order 21, Rule 66. C. p. C. a sum of Rs. 91,514-4-0 was mentioned as the amount due and payable by the Judgment-debtor. At the court-auction, the appellant was the highest bidder and so the bid was knocked down in his favour. As such, he became the auction-purchaser.3. The first respondent claiming to be interested in item 6 of the properties deposited Rs. 1,350/- representing Ih...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »