Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Konathala Sriamulu and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue (C.T.), Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP395
Chandra Reddy, C.J.(1) This matter has been brought before us on an objection raised by the Office that no directions could be given for the refund of Court-fee in these appeals.(2) It may be recalled that while allowing the appeals brought by certain assessees under section 23 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, `957 and remanding the cases for fresh disposal according to law, a direction was issued to refund the Court-fee paid on the memoranda of appeal.(3) The main question that arises for consideration is whether this Court has power to order refund of Court-fee while remanding the tax matter to the Board of Revenue for fresh disposal. In this context, reference has to be made to section 64 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (herein after referred to as the Act). That recites (omitting the unnecessary portion) :'64 (1) where a plaint or memorandum of appeal rejected by the lower Court is ordered to be received, or where a suit is remanded in appeal for fr...
Chinni Veeraiah Chetty Vs. Morisetti Lakshmikantamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP322
(1) This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition of the plaint schedule house into two shares, for separate possession of one share and for an account of the rents collected by the defendant from 11-4-52.(2) Issues Nos. 1 and 4 framed by the trial court are as follows : '(1) Whether the defendant had spent any amount for repairs If so, what is the amount ? * * * * * * (4) Whether the defendant is entitled to incur any amount for repairs without the consent of the plaintiff If so, whether the defendant is liable to be reimbursed?' The facts found by the Courts below are : The house was tenanted by the Municipality until 1952 for locating its Ayurvedic dispensary paying a rent of Rs. 20/- per month. But by 1952, the house was badly in need of repairs. The northern half portion was leaking and it threatened to fall down at any time. Therefore, the Municipality gave up possession and removed the dispensary to another building. Then, the defendant sent two notices, Exs. A. 1 and A....
Badarwada Bhima Subbaraju Vs. Village Panchayat of Gundugolanu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP186
(1) The short but important question which this enquiry posses is, whether Article 56 of the Limitation Act applies to the facts of the case or is it Article 115 which is applicable. (2) The necessary facts in order to appreciate the contentions raised before me are that the plaintiff who is the appellant before me instituted the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,717-82 nP. due on the execution of contract work of the first defendant Panchayat at Gundugolanu. It was alleged inter alia in the plaint that tenders were called for by the first defendant for some earth work for deepening the Vindyavasi tank in Gundugolanu village and for providing barbed wire fencing. In response to that call the plaintiff submitted his tender. His tender was finally approved and an agreement was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant. He completed the work as well as certain other items which were not included in the contract. As the defendant refused to pay the amount, the suit w...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Yellagadda Ramakrishna Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP79; 1965CriLJ279
Narasimham, J.(1) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, in C. C. 313 of 1962 by which he acquitted the respondents of offences under Sections 123 and 125 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939) and the 1st respondent (A-1) of an offence under Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931 (Act III of 1931). (2) The following are the relevant facts : On 29-4-1962 the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Kakinada, checked a tractor and trailor combination bearing Registration Nos. A. P. P. 3795 respectively at Kadiam. The vehicles were carrying bricks, a building material. The owner of these vehicles is the 1st respondent. At the time of the checking, the 2nd respondent was driving the tractor. The driver did not produce the registration certificate, the insurance certificate, the driving licence, the permit and the fitness certificates. The tax for the quarter ending 30-6-1962 was not paid. No tax disc was exhibited. The Officer seize...
E.S. Ramakrishna Setty Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP420; 1965CriLJ608
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J. (1) In C. C. No. 338 of 1962, on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Alur the sole accused, E. S. Ramakrishna Setty, was charged with an offence under S. 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra area) motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931 (Act III of 1931) hereinafter referred to as the Act) namely, that the accused was a registered owner of the lorry MYF 7999 and that he had not paid tax of Rs. 170-80 nP. to the Government of Andhra Pradesh in respect of that lorry. The accused denied the offence and contested the case. After trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused of the offence and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks and also directed him to pay the tax.Accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 1962 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the lower court and dismissed the appeal. Accused filed Cri....
Chilukula Sanjeevappa and ors. Vs. Kummathi Anjanappa and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP174
Satyanarayana Raju, J.(1) This second appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by one of us (Venkatesam, J). (2) The plaintiff, who is the 1st respondent herein, filed a suit for the following reliefs :(1) Declaration of his right to let out water from the bath room of his house described in the schedule attached to the plaint through the sluice of the bath room into the open space south of the house ; (2) A mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the obstruction caused by them to the sluice and put up a new slab at the place where there was an old slab as it was damaged on account of their obstruction ; and (3) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his right to let out water from the bath room to the sluice into the open space south of the house. The 1st respondent-plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule house situated in Nakkalapalli village in Kalyandurg taluk, Anantapur District. There is a bath room in the house in the s...
Naoshir S. Chenoy, Hyderabad Vs. District Collector of Hyderabad and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP159
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order of our learned brother Justice Satyanarayana Raju, dismissing a petition filed by the Liquidator of the Hyderabad Pictures Ltd. , Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the Company) under S. 518 of the Indian Companies Act (hereinafter called the Act for two reliefs, viz., to declare that the respondents, i.e. the District Collector of Hyderabad, Superintending Engineer, P. W. D. and the Estate Officer, Hyderabad have no right to distrain and sell the Projectors of the Company and to stay the sale of the Cinema Projectors pursuant to the notice published by the respondents in The Deccan Chronicle.(2) The material facts which are not in dispute may be shortly stated. The Company was incorporated under the provisions of the Hyderabad Companies Act with an authorised capital of Rs. 2,80,000/-, the Government of the erstwhile Hyderabad State owning eighty per cent of the shares. Among the several objects set out in the Memo...
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Private) Ltd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC120(AP)
Narasimham, J.1. These two revision petitions are preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Act No. 6 of 1957) against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal excepting certain sales of commodities by Messrs Gannon Dunkerley & Co., Madras (Private) Ltd., from the taxable turnover for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. T.R.C. No. 44 of 1963 relates to the assessment year 1958-59 and T.R.C. No. 45 of 1963 to the assessment year 1959-60. The Appellate Tribunal held that the sales were not taxable as they were not regular dealers in the commodities sold.2. The facts are these: Messrs Gannon Dunkerley & Co., Madras (Private) Ltd., are works contractors and registered dealers in sanitary wares, sundry articles, etc. They have their head office at Madras and branches at Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam, Vijayawada, Rajahmundry etc. Their office at Rajahmundry is the principal place of business in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Fo...
Ramulu and anr. Vs. Govur Venkanna (Died) Govur Narayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP466
(1) This second appeal is from the judgment of the District Judge, Nizamabad, given on 30th July, 1960, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants was allowed and the plaintiffs suit dismissed. The short but important question which must necessarily be answered in this second appeal is whether S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) governs a case, where the last Hindu male-holder died before the commencement of the Act and where he was succeeded by a female having limited interest, she without becoming the absolute owner, died after the Act came into force. In order to find out a satisfactory answer to this question it is necessary to mention a few facts. the plaintiffs - appellant instituted a suit for a declaration that the alienation made by Sayamma, the 1st defendant, who lands under a sale deeds, dated 9-12-1955 is a sham and nominal transaction and that the plaintiffs are the nearest reversioners to Pedda Saidu, the last male-holder of the propert...
Kakinada Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Kakinada by Its Secretary Vs. S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1966AP240
Kumarayya, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for declaration that the suit Vaddanam belongs to the 3rd defendant and was validly pledged with the plaintiff on 19-11-1958 for a sum of Rs. 2,300 through the 4th defendant; that the plaintiff is entitled to possession thereof; and that defendants 3 to 5 should be directed to hand over the Vaddanam to the plaintiff or in default to pay its value.2. The facts briefly stated are these. The plaintiff-firm does money-lending business at Kakinada. It has got licence for pawn-broker's business also. The 3rd defendant was in need of money. She sent for the clerk of the plaintiff's firm and asked him to arrange tor a loan tor her. The said clerk told her that they had no ready funds. As she was in urgent need of money, she made earnest request that the amount may be advanced on the pledge of her Vaddanam which pledge she would redeem. The 3rd defendant men sent the Vaddanam to the plaintiff's firm through 4th defendant with a letter Ex. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »