Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Yarlagadda Bapanna Vs. Devata China Yerakayya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1966AP151
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 2. Although thesecurity bond as such cannot be enforced underSection 145 C. P. C., which seems to apply topersonal liability, Section 151 Civil Procedure Codecomes to the rescue of thedecree-holder who could request the court toenforce the bond in the exercise of its inherentJurisdiction, when the bond is executed in favourof the Court. There is abundant authority for this position. See Subbarao v. Venkataraiu, : AIR1964AP339 . This position is not contested by the respondent.3. This being the correct legal position, the decree-holder could have the bond enforced by virtue of Section 151 C.P.C. To that extent the order of the lower appellate Court is varied.4. As regards the grievance of the appellant that the liability of the respondent as undertaken under the security bond should be coextensive with the amount of the decree to be passed, we do not think it is well founded. There can be little doubt that the respondent had undertaken the liability only to the tune ...
Sidramappa Vs. Sangappa
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1966AP66
Kumarayya, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition raises essentially a question of jurisdiction. The point for determination is, whether the District Munsif, Zaheerabad did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit as brought, it may be noted, is for possession of five items of land bearing S. Nos. 33, 40/2, 78/1, 78/2 and 78/3 and also for past mesne profits in a sum of Rs. 600. The value of the lands as assessed by the plaintiff in his plaint was only Rs. 2,500. On the objection raised by the defendant, the learned District Munsif after due enquiry found that having regard to their location and fertility their market value must be assessed at Rs. 5,560 at the rate of Rs. 400 per acre. Accordingly he directed the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in Court-fee, payable under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Court-fees and Suits Valu- ation Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as an Act). As a result of the above finding, a further question that arose for determinatio...
Habeeb Ahmad Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1966AP102
ORDERJaganmohan Reddy, J.1. O. P. No. 2/63 was filed by Habeeb Ahmed, under Sections 46, 47, 56 read with 107 and 108 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 195S for rectification, cancellation etc., of the trade name 'Rafiq Jadi Beedi', he having taken the trade name of 'Rafiq Judi Bidi'.2. It may be stated that 'Rafiq Jadi Beedi' was got registered by the 2nd respondent as Trade Mark No. 203382 in the Office of the Trade Mark Registry at Madras. The petitioner was manufacturing beedies in the name of 'Rafiq Jadi Bidi' and filed an application for registration of this Trade Mark on 12-6-1963. But the registration was opposed by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent further filed a criminal case No. 5127 of 1963 on the file of the 8th City Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioner under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') read with Sections 482, 486 and 488 of the Indian Penal Code, for infringement of the trade mark. In t...
Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP474
ORDERVenkatesam, J. This second appeal raises the following questions:-(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. (3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the le...
Gunturu Kotaiah Vs. Radhakrishnamurty, S.i. of Police Lalapet Guntur a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ824
ORDERSharfuddin Ahmed, J.1. The grievance in this Criminal Revision Case is that the Additional Ist Class Magistrate, Guntur while discharging the accused Nos. 2 to 5 has referred the case under Section 202, Criminal P. C. to the Additional Judicial II Class Magistrate, Guntur for ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint so fat as. A.1 is concerned. It is urged that once the Magistrate has exercised the discretion vested in him under Section 203, Criminal P. C., in respect of A.2 to A.5, he was not competent to go back to Section 202, Criminal P. C. and refer the matter to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate for ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint in respect of A.1.2. The learned Sessions Judge in para 4 of his judgment has found that the order of the 1st Class Magistrate as against A-2 to A.5 is no doubt under Section 203, Criminal P. C., but so far as A-1 was concerned, be committed an irregularity by taking the case on file under Sections 323 and 324, I...
Public Prosecutor Vs. V. Nagabhushanam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP118; 1965CriLJ420
Basi Reddy, J. (1) This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State Government from the judgment of the Additional District Munsif-Magistrate, Kovvur, in C. C. No. 162/1962 on his file, acquitting the accused-respondent of an offence under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The case against the respondent was that on 21-1-1962 at 6 P. M. at his shop at Nidadavole, he had sold a sample of coconut oil to the Food Inspector of Nidadavole Panchayat ; that when a portion of that sample was sent to the Public Analyst, it was found to contain 79 % of mineral oil and in the opinion of the Public Analyst, the consumption of coconut oil containing mineral oil is highly dangerous to public health ; and that, inasmuch as the respondent had sold adulterated food, he had rendered himself liable to punishment under Sec. 16(1) of the Act. (2) One of the grounds upon which the lower Court based its or...
Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Uttaravalli Nageswararao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP176; 1965CriLJ543
(1) The respondent herein one U. Nageswararao was charge-sheeted under Sec. 3 (1) of Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) by the Special Police Officer and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bandar, before the Munsif Magistrate, Gudivada in Calendar Case No. 21 of 1963. The allegations against the respondent were that he was running a brothel in house bearing Door No. 12/327; that when on 19-11-1962 at about 11-45 in the night the Special Police Officer along with the mediators made a surprise raid on the said house, he found two customers in the house in the company of prostitutes. It was stated that the respondent was also present in the house. He opened the door and the party on entering the house found two rooms in the eastern side of the house bolted from inside. When the doors were opened, P. Ws. 1 and 2 were found inside while in the other room P. Ws. 6 and 7 were found in the dishevelled state. On enquiry it was revealed by P. W...
Vallabhaneni Vimalamba Vs. Ghanta Ratnamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1966AP26
ORDERVenkatesam, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned District Munsif, Gudivada in I.A.No.255 of 1960 in O.S.No.217 of 1957. The petitioner prayed for amendment of the plaint and decree by noting the sum of Rs. 148-8-0 as interest due, instead of Rs. 37-2-0 noted in the plaint and the decree. The petitioner's case was that by mistake the wrong sum of Rs. 37-2-0 was noted for Rs. 148-8-0. This application was resisted by the judgment-debtor, and the objection was upheld by the trial Court, and the petition was dismissed. Hence the revision.2. The suit was filed on the foot of a mortgage deed dated 31-8-1945 for the principal sum of Rs. 200/-. In the plaint, paragraph 7, the particulars of the claim were stated thus:Principal amount of the mortgage deed dated 31-8-1945.Rs. 200-0-0Interest at the rate of Rs. 0-8-3 per hundred permensem from 31-8-45 to 30-8-57.37-2-0 237-12-03. In paragraph 10, dealing with the prayer, it was prayed that a preliminary decree may be pa...
Rajshri Pictures Private Ltd. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-02-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC348(AP)
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The question that calls for decision in this tax revision case is whether the supply of posters and other publicity materials by the assessee-petitioner to the producers, amounts to a sale.2. The petitioner-company who in addition to being distributors of films produced by others, produces its own films. It gets huge stocks of publicity material printed and supplies it to the producers at a cost. This cost includes the printing charges paid by him to the printing press inclusive of sales tax thereon, as also five to fifteen per cent. of what is called handling charges. Admittedly, the petitioner could not prove that the so-called handling charges have any relation to the expenditure incurred by him in the matter of handling the publicity material. So the department treated these charges as profit and for that reason it regarded the transactions as sales within the purview of Section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.3. The Tribunal relied upon th...
Nazeena Traders (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP200
Chandra Reddy, C.J. (1) These writ petitions involve some common questions of law relating to the proper interpretation of the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Act. 1952 (hereinafter called the Act). They are filed by some of the factories and commercial establishments in this State to which the Act has been made applicable by the issue of notifications from to tome by the Central Government pursuant to the powers derived by them under the relevant provisions of the Act. The relief asked for in all these petitions is the issuance of a writ of mandamus to restrain the concerned Regional Provident Fund Commissioners from enforcing the provisions of the Act. What occasioned the institutions of these petitions was the service of notice by the proper Commissioners on these establishments requiring them to remit the employers' share of contribution towards the Provident Fund and administrative charges and to return statements as required by the relevant paragraphs of the Provident...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›