Andhra Pradesh Court March 1964 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.
Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. N. Venkata Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1966AP116; [1965(10)FLR16]
Chanora Reddy, C.J.1. This is an ap-peal against the judgment of our learned brother Justice Jaganmohath Reddy quashing an order of reversion dated 9th February 1960, made by the Collector of Central Excise.2. The facts which are not in dispute lie in a narrow compass and may be stated thus: The petitioner, who was an Inspector of theCentral Excise, along with nine others, was promoted by an order dated the 21st April 1939 by the Collector of Central Excise to officiate as Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise (Executive) in the Central Excise Department in the scale of 260-15-350 until further orders. Formal posting orders were to be issued separately. These ten persons were selected out of a list of 266 Inspectors tormina the field of choice for promotion and that the respondent's rank in the list was at 262. We are told by the counsel for the respondent that these 260 did not exhaust all the Inspectors. This list was prepared out of the then existing 800 Inspectors. On the 9th of ...
Ravukumara Raj Appa Row Vs. Veera Raghava Raya Choudary (Died) Sri Nar ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1966AP268
ORDERAnantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. A Veeraraghava Raya Chowdhry, as sole plaintiff, filed O. S. No. 3 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor. On 18-3-1956, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit for default. Plaintiff filed I. A. No. 141 of 1956 for setting aside that order of dismissal. Ultimately, I. A. No. 141 of 1958 came up for enquiry on 27-7-1959. On that day, plaintiff was not present in person or by Advocate. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed I. A. No. 141 of 1956 for default.The very same day, the Advocate, Sri N. K. Viswanathayya appeared for plaintiff and filed I. A. No. 322 of 1959 praying for restoration of I. A. No. 141 of 1956 to file. That petition was accompanied by an affidavit of the Advocate's clerk stating that the plaintiff had left the vakalat with Sri N. K. Viswanathayya, that the latter could not attend Court in time due to some personal inconvenience and that the clerk himself went to the Court of the District Munsif in the same ...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. C. Satyanarayanamurthy.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR353(AP)
P. CHANDRA REDDY C.J. - This reference involves the proper interpretation of clauses (xii) and (xxiv) of section 2 read with sections 3 and 4 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question we are required to answer in this reference is formulated in these words :'Whether the declaration by which Sri C. Malakondaiah has impressed the character of a joint Hindu family property on the self-acquired properties owned by him amounts to a transfer so as to attract the provisions of the Gift-tax Act ?'The facts giving rise to this reference lie in short compass and may be stated as follows : One Sri C. Malakondaiah, who was the manager of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his five sons, thought of throwing his self-acquisitions into the common stock. This result he wanted to achieve by a declaration executed on the 1st day of May, 1957. It reads as follows :'Having intended and resolved to convert all the properties owned by me into joint family prope...
K.C.P. Ltd., Vuyyuni Vs. the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra Prades ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP4; [1967]63ITR153(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J. (1) This reference bears upon Sec. 5, clause (xx) of the Wealth Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question we are called upon to answer is framed in these words : 'Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 5(1) of the Wealth Tax Act for the three assessment years in question - 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60.' (2) The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business from its inception in the manufacture and sale of sugar under the name and style of K. C. P. Ltd. Vuyyur. Sometime later, it decided to set up a Cement Factory as a separate unit described as Messrs. Ramakrishna Cements Macherla. Pursuant to this resolution, the assessee purchased the machineries for installing the Cement Factory in the year 1954-55. The factory was actually set up and was ready for production in February 1958. Meanwhile, the Act came into force on 1-4-1957. (3) Taking advantage of the Act, the relevant provisions of which will be referred to prese...
Mullapudi Venkanna Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1964AP449; 1964CriLJ377
ORDERMohamed Mirza, J.1. This petition is filed by Mr. Adavi Rama Rao, the learned Counsel praying that this Court may order the sentence passed in S. C. No. 2/61 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudivada to run concurrently with that passed in S C. No. 26/57 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru. The learned Counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor relied on In re, Nachimuthu, AIR 1958 Mad 452 and submits that the High Court has no power to review the orders passed by the trial Court or appellate Court and the order to make the sentences run concurrently cannot be passed when there is no appeal pending before the High Court. But in my opinion, the High Court has wide powers under Section 485, Criminal Procedure Code and it can always consider the propriety of a sentence recorded by the lower Courts and in case it feels that the sentence is inappropriate it cart always correct it. The power to order the sentences to run concurrently is provided under Section...
In Re: K.V. Ayyaswamy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP105; 1965CriLJ281
Jaganmohan Reddy, J. (1) The accused has been charged for offences under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947) (herein after called 'the Act'). The Special Judge did not record any finding under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted the accused under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act with the aid of the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/- (2) The Appellant is an Assistant Draughtsman in the Southern Railway in the office of Executive Engineer, Guntakal. P. W. 1, C. V. Naidu, had obtained a contract from the Southern Railway for construction of a platform in Gooty, of the value of rupees three lakhs. The accused, who was deputed in the first week of February 1961, supervised the construction work from 10-4-1961 to 29-4-1961. He was relieved on 6-5-1961 he was working at Guntakal f...
Varada Bongar Raju Vs. Kirthali Avatharam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP86
(1) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of our learned brother Justice Chandrasekhara Sastry in Second Appeal No. 270 of 1962. The learned Judge while reversing a part of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, granted leave to file this appeal.(2) This appeal arises out of an action laid by the plaintiff for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage, Ex. B. 1, dated the 20th of November 1957 executed by the 3rd defendant in favour of defendants and 2 and for recovery of possession. By and under this document the subject-matter of this appeal was mortgaged by the 3rd defendant in their favour to secure a sum of Rs. 6000/- advanced by the respondents to the mortgagor on 20th November 1957. This transaction is evidenced by Ex. B. 1. Sometime thereafter, the 3rd defendant sold the property for Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 6,000/- to be utilised for redeeming the mortgage and Rs. 4,000/- payable to the mortgagor. Thereupon, the plaintiff brought the prese...
Markonda Chinnam Naidu Vs. Koommana Swamy (Died) Koommana Bangaramma a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP8
(1) This is a plaintiff's appeal directed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam who reversed the decree passed in favour of the Plaintiff by the District Munsif Parvathipuram in O. S. No. 59 of 1957. The suit was laid under Order XXI, R. 103 C. P. C. The suit building was validly leased to the plaintiff more than 25 years ago by the Judgment-debtor in O. S. No. 61 of 1952 of the Sub-Court, Srikakulam. That suit was for recovery of a sum of money. In execution of the decree therein the decree-holder attached and brought to court-sale the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor in the building in question. The respondent is the successful purchaser at the court auction. On the strength of this purchase at court-sale he duly obtained a sale certificate he applied for delivery of actual possession of the suit building. Actual delivery was resisted by the present plaintiff, who claimed to be in valid possession of the building in his own independent right as les...
Radhakrishna and Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-1964
Reported in: [1966]17STC128(AP)
ORDERGopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of mandamus and arises in the following circumstances:2. For the assessment year 1957-58, the petitioner was assessed on 19th March, 1958. It was subsequently however revealed that the petitioner was guilty of some suppression of some transactions. A penalty order therefore was made on 8th May, 1958. Against that order, the petitioner wont in appeal to the Assistant Commissioner. That appeal was dismissed. He carried the matter to the Tribunal again in appeal, but was not successful. Ultimately he challenged the legality of the order dated 8th May, 1958, in W.P. No. 127 of 1959. A Bench of this Court dismissed that writ petition holding that the order is not bad in law. It was held that the petitioner suppressed several taxable items with the dishonest intention of evading sales tax. This judgment was given on 22nd August, 1959. After a lapse of nearly three years, another petition now is filed challenging the v...
Gandavalla Munuswamy Vs. Marugu Muniramiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP167
(1) This is a plaintiff's Second Appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Chittoor who affirmed the decision of the District Munsif, Tirupati. The facts that lead up to this Second Appeal lie in a brief compass. The suit property belonged to Hathiramjee Mutt. That Mutt leased it to the plaintiff. While the plaintiff was thus in possession of the property, he granted a sub lease of the suit site and a house thereon to the defendant under Ex. A. 1 dated 2-10-1957. This sub lease was to expire on 30-9-1958. On 22-5-1958, the house was destroyed by fire. Soon after, the defendant sub-lessee appears to have obtained a permission from the head lessor, namely, the Mutt for constructing a thatched hut on the suit site. On 12-8-1958, the plaintiff purported to take a permanent lease from the Mutt under Ex. B.6. On 29-3-1959, the plaintiff laid the present suit for recovery of possession of the suit site from the defendant and for arrears of rent. This suit ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »