Andhra Pradesh Court January 1965 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.
The Public Prosecutor Vs. K.V. Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966AP77; 1966CriLJ253; [1966]18STC35(AP)
Kumarayya, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal and is before us on refer-ence by our learned brother Mohd. Mirza, J.2. The short point to be determined is whether the non-payment of tax due for the year ending with 31-12-1957, after the demand notice has been served on the accused, constitutes a contravention of Sub-rule (7) of Rule 14-A of the Central Sates Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules 1957 to be held punishable under Rule 16 of the said Rules. It is common ground that the Rule 14-A was introduced in the Rules only in the year 1958 by G. O. Ms. 1805, Revenue dated 30-9-1958.3. The facts of the case may be shortly stated. The 1st accused K. V. Subba Rao is the managing partner of the Firm, Messrs. Radha-krishna Rice Mill Contractors, of which all the four accused are the partners. They were carrying on business in Dosapadu in the year 1957-58 for which the accounting year ended on 31-12-1957. The Commercial Tax Officer assessed them on a turnover of Rs. 2,59,720 to a ta...
B. Balaiah Vs. Chandoor Lachaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1965AP435
Ekbote, J.(1) The problem which this revision petition poses is :'Whether a father-cum-manager of a joint Hindu family, who is in possession of a non residential building, cannot ask for eviction under S. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 , of a tenant from another non residential building belonging to the family, on the ground that his undivided major son requires it for carrying on his business ?'(2) The respondent-landlord filed a petition under S. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act) against the petitioner-tenant on two grounds firstly that this son who had attained majority intends to start a new business and secondly, that the building requires re construction. That petitioner was resisted by the tenant.(3) The rent controller, after the enquiry, directed the eviction of the tenant holding that the requirement of the undivided son would ...
Coringa Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, A. P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR523(AP)
NARASIMHAM, J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the question formulated thus for decision by the High Courts :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the excess of sale amount over the written down value of the building and machinery amount to Rs. 68,666 was profit under the under the second 10(2) (vii) of the Ac ?' The reference is to the Indian Income-tax XI of 1922.The question arose on these facts : The assessee, The Coringa Company Limited (in voluntary liquidation) represented by the liquidator, Kakinada, is a public limited company. The relevant year of assessment was 1950-60 for which the account period was the are which ended December 31, 1958. The assessee-company had basins in rice milling and brick manufacturing plant. For the purpose of its business, it owned a rice mill and a brick manufacturing plant. It had leased out the rice smile from about 1928, though prior to that it had worked it. The income derived from the manufacturing of br...
Katta Lakshmayya Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-12-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ813AP
ORDERGopalakrishna Nair, J.1. Petitioner asks for a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the labour court, Hyderabad, on 25 September 1963, The petitioner is a workman employed in Singareni Collieries Company, Ltd. (respondent 2). The designation of his post is 'munshi' which is one of the posts belonging to grade III as listed in appendix XVI of the All-India Industrial Tribunal Collieries Disputes Act, 1956. He filed an application to the labour court (respondent 1) under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming that from the year 1956 he had been performing the duties and undertaking the responsibilities of a 'munshi-in-charge' and that therefore he must be recognized as ' munshi-in-charge' and paid the salary on that footing.2. 'A munshi-in-charge,' otherwise called 'a traffic-in-charge,' is one of the grade II posts listed in appendix XVI to the Industrial Tribunal Collieries Disputes award. The claim of the petitioner was that he must be held to belong to...
Mohd. MoinuddIn Vs. Mir Ahmed Ali
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1965AP409
ORDER(1) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Chief Judge, Small Cause Court, Hyderabad, dated 12-8-1963 in SC No. 597 of 1959. It was a suit instituted by the petitioner herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 906-12 nP. (I. G.) as being his fees for the cases in which he appeared on behalf of the respondent as a pleader . The petitioner's claim was that the respondent was a co-brother and was in strained circumstances. He had to institute suits against the Government and others for recovery of certain amounts. He volunteered to appear on his behalf in the said suits on the condition that his legal remuneration would be paid to him after the respondent succeeds in the said suits. Plaintiff has stated that both the suits were decreed as a result of his appearing on behalf of the respondent and, therefore, he was entitled to the remuneration.The defendant-respondent , on the other hand, while admitting the relationship stated that in view of the close relationship...
Uppala Lakshmidevi Vs. V.S. Murty
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1966AP62
ORDERGopal Rao Ekbote, J. 1. This revision petition directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam given on 28-1-1964. The necessary facts are that the petitioner summoned the valuation particulars and assessment orders made by the Asst. Controller, Estate Duty. In an application the Asst. Controller claimed privilege in respect of those two documents. The lower Court through the order under consideration upheld that contention and rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for summoning the documents. 2. Under Section 80 of the Estate Duty Act the provisions of Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922 (Act 11 of 1922) are made applicable only in so far as that section is concerned 'to all accounts, statements, documents, evidence, or affidavits given, produced, or obtained in connection with or in proceedings under this Act.'A reading of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act would however disclose that apart from the aboveside documents the said Act also prohibits...
Union of India (Central Government) and ors. Vs. Koka Raghava Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1965AP337
Basi Reddy, J. (1) This second appeal was referred to a Division Bench by one of us, because two decisions of the Punjab High Court in Firm Sahib Dayal Bakshi Ram v. Asst. Custodian Evacuees' property, and in Custodian General of Evacuee Property v. Harnam Singh, , and another decision of the Allahabad High Court in Lord Krishna Sugar Mills ltd., Saharanpur v. Asst. Custodian, Saharanpur, : AIR1958All396 which the courts below purported to follow, seemed to have taken an erroneous view of section 48 of the administration of Evacuee Property Act, (1950), (hereinafter called the Act') in holding that the provisions of that section did not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. The question, however, has now been decided by the Supreme Court in Abdul Karim v. Dy. Custodian General : [1964]6SCR837 and in the light of that decision, the judgment of the Punjab and Allahabad High Courts referred to above, must be held to have been wrongly decided . This position is rightly conceded by the...
Chintapalli Achaiah Vs. P. Gopalakrishna Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1966AP51
Ekbote, J. 1. The question which must essentially he answered in this enquiry is whether Section 32(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 15 ot 1960 thereinafter called the Act) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. The material facts are that the petitioner instituted a suit, O.S. 19/63 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabed, for a declaration that he is the tenant within the meaning of Section 2 (ii) of the Act and therefore is entitled to the protection afforded there under. The respondent who is the landlord instituted O.S. No. 20/0.3 against the petitioner before the same Court for possession of the suit property contending that us the suit building was constructed in 1960 it is exempted from the operation of the Act. The Chief Judge framed the following common issue in both the suits:'Whether Section 32(b) of the Act is unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative in view of the provisions of Article 14 and Artic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›