Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
Narahariappa Vs. Mohamed Moulana and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1967AP5
(1) The respondent stood surety in the suit proceedings for the defendant when an order under O XXXVIII, R. 5, Civil Procedure Code, was made by the Court. He executed a surety bond, creating charge on a plot of land of the value of Rs. 4,000. The undertaking given was to the effect that in case the suit is decreed, he would pay the suit amount of Rs. 3,309 together with the costs of the suit. Further if it be found that the property hypothecated is insufficient to meet the decretal amount, his person and other property would be liable for the balance. This document was executed on 13th September, 1957. It was accepted by the Court. After enquiry, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal, the case was remanded. This time, the suit was decreed. After the dismissal of the suit in the first instance the surety was not called upon to execute any further bond. After the decree, nevertheless the decree-holder sought to enforce the liability under the original security bond agains...
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T.R. Somaraju and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC177(AP)
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. These revision cases raise a common question relating to the proper interpretation of Section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The facts which are not in dispute and set out in the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal may be shortly narrated.3. The respondents carry on business as commission agents at Anakapalli. Some of the agriculturists in the district who manufacture jaggery from sugar-cane grown by them, take their produce to the respondents and entrust it to them for sale on commission. The respondents sort out the jaggery into different qualities and it is piled into heaps according to the quality. Thereafter the heaps of jaggery are auctioned in the presence of their principals or someone on their behalf. The commission agents prepare the bills indicating the quality of the jaggery, the price and the total consideration and issue them to their principals. Out of this sale price, deductions ar...
Shaik Saleem BIn Amer Batate Vs. MohsIn BIn Saleh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-1964
Reported in: AIR1966AP239
Basi Reddy, J. 1. This is a court-tee matter. The simple question raised here is whether or not a Memorandum of Appearance filed by an advocate along with a Criminal Revision Petition presented to the High Court on behalf of a person who is in the position of a complainant should be stamped with a court-fee of Rs. 5 as required by Article 16 of Schedule II of Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.' 2. The question arises in this way: One Shaik Saleem Bin Amar Batate presented a Criminal Revision Petition to this Court under Sections 435 and 439 Cr. P. C. against the appellate order of the Chief City Magistrate-cum-Additional Sessions Judge and District Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1964, confirming the order of the IInd City Magistrate, Hyderabad, made in M. C. No. 15 of 1963, whereby an application under Section 195 read with Section 476 Cr. P. C. requesting the court to make a complaint against one Mohsin Bin Saleh ...
Sivaraya Pundarikaksharao Vs. Lingareddi Venkatareddi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1966AP201
ORDERChandrasekhara Sastry, J. 1. The petitioner herein is the judgment-debtor in Small Cause Suit No. 6 of 1960 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ongole and the respondent is the decree-holder. In execution of the decree, the decree-holder got attached the undivided half share of the judgment-debtor (Ac. 5-49 1/2 cents) out of a total extent of Ac. 10-99 cents of dry land in S. No. 157 in the village Ithamukkala, and brought it to sale. He obtained permission from the court to bid at the auction and to set off. The sale was held on 27-3-61 and the decree-holder him self became the highest bidder, his bid being for Rs. 2,225. The amount due under the decree on the date of the sale was Rs. 500. The decree-holder, though he was the highest bidder and the bid was knocked down in his favour, did not deposit 25 per cent on the amount of the purchase money with the officer conducting the sale under Order 21, Rule 84(1) C. P. C. But the next day, i.e., on 28-3-61, he applied to th...
Mamidala Suryakantamma Vs. Thummala Venkatachalam and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1966AP110
ORDERChandrasekhara Sastry, J.1. O. S. 120 of 1959 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Peddapuram, was a suit filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell the plaint schedule lands, alleged to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In the plaint it was alleged that the second defendant was a tenant under the first defendant cultivating the lands. The agreement of sale on which the plaintiff relied is dated 25th February, 1959. It was further alleged in the plaint that the first defendant in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff, colluded with the second defendant, who is her mother's sister's son, and brought into existence an agreement to sell the suit lands to the second defendant. It is on these allegations the suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 25-2-1959. The relief asked for was also for possession of the suit lands not only against the first defendant but also against the second defendant.2. ...
Rayavarapu Mrityanjaya Rao Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-1964
Reported in: [1967]20STC417(AP)
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is canvassed in this revision case.2. The petitioner who grows casuarina. appears to have cut the trees into short pieces for purposes of transporting them to places where they could be sold. He claimed exemption in respect of the sale of this casuarina on the basis of the proviso to Section 2(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act (the statute that governs the present case). This request of the petitioner was negatived by the department as also by the Tribunal in the view that it does not fall within the ambit of the proviso as it stood at the relevant time. It is against this decision of the Appellate Tribunal affirming that of the Assistant Commissioner (C.T.) who in his turn confirmed the assessment made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, that this revision is carried.3. In this case, it is urged by Sri Kuppuswamy that the instant case attracts the applicability of the proviso and consequently his client is e...
Mirriyala China Subbaraidu Vs. Kallarsu Mahadeva Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP171
ORDERSatyanarayana Raju , J.(1) On the strength of the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Ramaswami v. G. Rudrappa, AIR 1939 Mad 688 : 1939 Mad W N 464, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that what Section 63 of the Contract Act permits is not an agreement to remit in future but an actual remission and that a promise to remit requires consideration in order to a binding contract. (2) Referring to this decision, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, consisting of B. K. Mukherjea J. , (as he then was) and Pal J., in Jitendra Chandra Roy v. S. N. Banerjee, AIR 1943 Cal 181 pointed out as follows : - 'In 1939 Mad W N 464 : AIR 1939 Mad 688, the point was not discussed properly, but the proposition of law was sought to be supported with reference to illustrations (b), (c), and (d) attached to Section 63, Contract Act. In our opinion, this is not a sound view to take and it clearly goes against the express words of the section.'(3) After consider...
Velivelli Sydulu Vs. Guntupalli Venkateswarlu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP318
Chandra Reddy, C.J. (1) This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment of Justice Seshachalapati in S. A. No. 575 of 1959 with the learned Judge's leave.(2) The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated. The appellant's father borrowed a sum of Rs. 950 on the 25th September 1950 and executed a promissory note for that sum on the same date. Sometime later a suit was instituted on behalf of the appellant that his father was leading an immoral life and was wasting away the family properties. This suit was not opposed by the father (he remaining ex parte), with the result that a preliminary decree was passed on the 28th of August 1953. On the same date, the father executed a promissory note in renewal of the debt for Rs. 1,117-1-10 and made an endorsement on the back of the promissory note which amounted to an acknowledgment of the debt. The final decree in the partition suit was passed on the 25th of August 1955. Meanwhile the respondent filed a suit for the recover...
A. Janardhana Rao Vs. Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kakinada and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP115
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kakinada from proceeding with an appeal filed before him by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is the holder of a stage carriage permit for the route Sompeta-Srikakulam. The 3rd respondent has a permit to ply a stage carriage from Jagati to Tekkali Via Sompeta. A stretch of 27 miles is common to both these routes. The petitioner applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam, for variation of the timings prescribed for the plying of his bus. That was allowed, in spite of the objections raised by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent thereupon moved the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kakinada, in appeal. This appeal was entertained and an interim order suspending the operation of the order of the Regional Transport Authority was passed. The petitioner's case is that no appeal lies under S. 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein-after referred to as 'the Act') against the order passed...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›