Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
R. Veerayya and M. Siddalingaiah and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1967AP265
ORDER(1) These eight writ petitions raise a common question of law, namely, whether Rules 189 and 190 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 made under Section 64 read with Section 68(2)(j) of the Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939) are ultra vires the powers of the Government and must therefore be struck down. Apart from this, in Writ Petition No. 749/65, there are certain other questions which require determination on the facts and merits of that particular case. It is therefore necessary to set out the facts in that writ petition.(2) The petitioner therein is a transport operator in Chittoor District having 6 stage-carriage permits, to ply motor buses in Chittoor District. He has a well-equipped workshop and has been in the field as an operator of motor buses for 20 years. The Road Transport Authority called for applications for grant of a stage-carriage permit on the route Chittoor to Salem, which is a long distance route, by its notification No. 14992/A-1/62 pursuant to which 28 applic...
Palani Swamy Chetty Vs. Salla Muthamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1967AP1
Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.(1) In this batch of civil revision petitions, two questions arise for determination:(1) Whether the appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act) can dismiss an appeal for default of appearance of the appellant and (2) Whether the appellate authority has power to restore such an appeal dismissed for default of appearance of the appellant on an application made by the appellant? For deciding those two questions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant sections of the Act and rules framed thereunder Appeals against the orders passed by the Controller are provided by Section 20 of the Act, which reads:'20 (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within thirty days, from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Chief Judge. Small Causes Court in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and elsewhere to the Subordinate Judge or if there a...
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram Vs. Vommi Appalaswami and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1967AP56
(1) This appeal is against the decision of the District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in O.P. No. 49 of 1960 on the file, which arose out of a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894).(2) For the purpose of extension of a Dairy Farm at Visakhapatnam, the Government issued a Notification on 16-5-1949 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act), that 7 items of property of a total extent of Ac. 7-70 situated in the village Chinna Gadali will be acquired.(3) The procedure under the Act was followed, and the necessary Notifications and notices issued by the Land Acquisition Officer. For the first five items, he awarded compensation at Rs.300 per acre, and in addition 15 per cent solatium. For items 6 and 7, he awarded compensation at Rs. 50 per acre for the land alone, and valued the trees separately. In item 3, there were certain structures belonging to claimants 3 and 4, which were valued at Rs. 4,551, out of which Rs.3,377 to the 4th claimant...
Allampati Subba Reddy Vs. Neelapareddi Ramanareddi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1966AP267
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. 1. This revision petition arises out of a suit S.G.S. 145/62 instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,864 on the foot of a promissory note, dated 29-74959. The principal defence with which I am concerned in this revision petition was that the promissory note was not executed on 29-7-1959, but it was executed on 22-7-1959, It was contended by the defendant that in order to bring the suit within limitation the plaintiff after erasing the figure '2' has rewritten the figure '9'.2. The lower Court after proper enquiry found that there lias been a material alteration in the promissory note and that the date was changed from 22nd to 29th in order to bring the suit within limitation. The suit was filed on 30th July 3959, 29th being a holiday.3. The main contention of Mr. A. Kuppuswamy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that when the defendant even before inspecting the suit document took a stand that the promissory note was really...
Navalkha and Sons Vs. Ramanujulu Naidu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1965
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas48(AP)
1. These are five appeals, O.S. Nos. 2 to 6 of 1965, all arising out of different orders made in connection with the sale of the property in Company Petition No. 1 of 1960. In the winding up proceeding of the Hyderabad Vegetable Products Company Limited, the official liquidator sought permission under Section 457 of the Companies Act read with Rules 272 and 273 of the Companies (Court) Rules for the sale of immovable and movable properties and actionable claims of the company and requested the court to direct sale through commissioners to be appointed by the court as per the terms and conditions submitted by him. One Sirajuddin Babu Khan, a shareholder of the company, also made an application (C. A. No. 93 of 1964) to the similar effect requesting the court to effect sale of the assets of the company as one unit in the interests of the shareholders and creditors through commissioners appointed by the court after giving wide publicity and subject to the confirmation by the court. Our le...
Narpatsingh Dadha Vs. Gokuldas and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1966AP384
ORDER1. This pertains to a revision wh(sic) we have disposed of, and it is stated that the date of its hearing and disposal, the petitioner died. The question of the death of the petitioner does not- in any way make our judgment invalid for the reason that it is a revision under Section 115, C P C. in which the High Court can even suo motu call for the records and dispose of it after examining them and satisfying itself that the lower Court's order does not suffer from any infirmity specified in Section 115 We do not think that the death of a party affects the High Court's power of revision and hence the validity of the judgment cannot be questioned.2. The petition is dismissed ...
Koruprolu Talupulu Vs. Dasetti Narasamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1965
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ304AP
ORDER(1) The learned Advocate for the petitioner is not present, I have, therefore, heard the learned Advocate for the respondent. The only point involved in this revision petition is whether the amount of Provident Fund is the property of the deceased or is that of the nominee. This very point fell for consideration in . In the Goods Stanley Austin Cardigan Martin AIR 1939 Cal 642. It was held by their Lord ships that thata would not be an asset of the deceased in the hands of the nominee. It is the property belonging to the nominee. Admittedly, the respondent was the nominee of the Provident Fund. The Provident Fund amount which he got after the death of the deceased, would be his and could not be treated as an asset of the deceased in the hands of the respondent. Assuming, therefore, that the house was contructed out of this amount, even then that house does bot being to the deceased. The Judgment of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, therefore, in conclusion is correct and I...
Vinjamuri Venkata Narasimhacharyulu Vs. Kadabhusi Lakshmi Narasimhacha ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1967AP64
(1) The only point for consideration in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff has established his title to and possession of one-sixth share in the suit property. The learned District Munsif found in the affirmative and granted a preliminary decree for 1/6th share in the suit properties of the total extent of acrs. 7-31 cts., comprising items 1 and 2 but that that extent will be marked out only from item 1. He also directed that the 1st defendant should render an account for the plaintiff's 1/6th share of the plaint scheduled properties after deducting taxes paid by him. This decision of the District Munsif was confirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge in A. S. No. 54 of 1961. While this appeal came up before me for hearing, Sri Sankara Sastry the learned counsel for the appellant made a grievance of the fact that in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had title to an undivided 1/6th share and also possession within 12 years, the learned Subordinate Judge, as a final cou...
Rani Bhagya Laxmamma Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Andhra Pradesh, H ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1967AP22
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.(1) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case, in respect of the assessment year 1957-58, for which the relevant valuation date is 31-3-1957, under Section 27(I) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, on the following questions for the opinion of this Court, namely.(1) Whether the assessee has been correctly assessed in the status of an individual: and (2) Where the amount receivable by the assessee from the Jagir Administrator as compensation on the abolition of the Jagir constitute the Wealth of the assessee and is assessable under the Wealth Tax Act. (2) The facts out of which the above two questions arise are that the assessee. Rani Bhagya Lakshmamma was the holder of Samasthan Amarchinta prior to the abolition of the Jagirs. She was the Jagirdar and in respect of the income from the Jagir, she was being assessed as an individual. On the abolition of the Jagirs, the Government determined a certain sum as payable to her for taking over her rights in the Jagir, na...
Rani Bhagya Laxmamma Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Andhra Pradesh.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR601(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case, in respect to the assessment year 1957-58, for which the relevant valuation date is March 31, 1957, under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on the following questions for the opinion of this court, namely :'(1) Whether the assessee has been correctly assessed in the status of an individual and(2) Whether the amount receivable by the assessee from the jagir administrator as compensation on the abolition of the jagir constitutes the wealth of the assessee and is assessable under the Wealth-tax Act ?The facts out of which the above two questions arise are that the assessee, Rani Bhagya Laxmamma, was the holder of Samasthan Amarchinta prior to the abolition of the jagirs. She was the jagirdar and, in respect of the income from the jagir, she was being assessed as an individual. On the abolition of the jagirs, the Government determined a certain sum as payable to her for taking over her rights in the jagir,...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »