Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP160
Ananthanarayana Ayyar, J.1. The Writ Petitioner filed this petition praying this Court to call for the records and issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other direction or order directing the respondent-Vijayawada Municipality to forbear from collecting profession tax separately from the petitioner-company in pursuance of assessment No. 7689-A dated 19-7-1962.2. The petitioner, Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Private Limited, is a Transport Company with its Head Office at Kakinada and various branches at in several towns. In particular, it has got one branch at Rajahmundry and two branches within the limits of Vijayawada Municipality.3. The Writ Petition originally came up for hearing before Manohar Pershad, J. (as he then was) who referred it to a Bench. The case then came up before a Division Bench consisting of one of as (H. A A. J.) and Narasimham J. That Division Bench considered an unreported decision of an earlier Division Bench of this Court in Mahalakshmi Butter Co. v. Nagalanka Village ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP207; 1968CriLJ888
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J. 1. IN each of the three cases, the learned Advocate-General is the petitioner and Abba Raju Rama Rao is the sole respondent.2. The prayer in C C. No. 32 of 1965 is to commit the respondent for Contempt of Court under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 for having made certain allegations, amounting to Contempt of Court in Crl. M. P. No. 431 of 1965 in Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 1963 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry.3. The prayer in C. C. No. 25 of 1966 is 'to commit the respondent for Contempt of Court under Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1952 by scandalising the Court by making unwarranted allegations in the affidavit ir Crl. M. P. No. 1177 of 1966 in Crl. R. C. No. 393 of 1964 on the file of the High Court.4. The prayer, in C C. No. 26 of 1966 is to commit the respondent for Contempt of Court under Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 for deliberately making allegati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP83; 1968CriLJ294
Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J. 1. This Full Bench has been formed to consider the Constitutional validity of Sections 5(2) and 13 of the Madras Revenue Malversation Regulation (Madras Regulation DC of 1822) (hereinafter called 'the Regulation') as offending Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 21 and 22 of the Constitution A Bench of the Madras High Court, consisting of Rama-krishnan and Sadasivani, JJ., had, in Srinivasa Iyer v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli, 1966-1 Mad L) 459, held the aforesaid provisions as offending Article 14 of the Constitution and had struck them down. The correctness of that decision having been challenged by the learned Government Pleader before two of us (namely Basi Reddy and Anantanarayana Ayyar, JJ.) these three petitions have been directed to be posted before a Full Bench, as the issues insolved are of great public importance.2. In Crl. M. P. No. 1740/1965, the petitioner is a village munsif of Biradavada group of villages in Nellore District. The Revenue Divisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP320
1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Satyanarayana Raju J.. (as he then was) sitting as a Company Judge in O. P. No. 8/6 of 1956, awarding damages of a sum of Rs. 2687-8-0 against the appellant Company for cancelling a transfer made by it in favour of the respondent M. R. Patny, on the ground that the action of the Company cannot be justified. The sole respondent M. R. Patny having died pending this appeal, respondents 2 to 8 have been brought on record as his legal representatives, of whom the 2nd respondent is the wife and respondents 3 to 8 are his sons and daughters.2. The deceased M. R. Patny (hereinafter referred as 'the respondent') filed an application under Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, for rectification of the Share Register of the appellant Company by restoring his name as the owner of 100 shares bearing distinctive Nos. 54164 to 54263, comprised in share scrip No. 1331, or in the alternative, to direct the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1968]68ITR19(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY C.J. - These two references arise from the same transactions entered into by the assessee, namely, renovation and repairs to what is known as 'Rashtrapati Nilayam' at Bolarum, and the period of assessment is in respect of the 'previous year' 1959-60. Two questions are before us, the one referred by the Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, Viz.,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the previous year for the assessment year 1959-60 in respect of the contract business was correctly taken as the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959 ?'and the second question referred by the Tribunal as required by us, under section 66(2) in R. C. No. 36 of 1966, namely :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, estimation of profit on the gross amount instead of estimating on the net amount received by the assessee after deduction of costs of material supplied by the Government is justified in law.'The assessee is an indivi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP108; 1968CriLJ442; [1968(16)FLR228]; (1968)IILLJ493AP
Basi Reddy, J. 1. These criminal revision cases have been referred to a Full Bench because of the general importance of the question involved in them, which pertains to the liability of a Branch Manager of a Co-operative Bank 'inter alia' to maintain the prescribed registers, and turns on the true construction of Section 4(1) (a) read in the light of Clauses 5 and 12 of Section 2 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 now called 'The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Shops and Establishments Act, 1947' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Before the Divisional Bench which referred this matter to the Full Bench, the correctness of the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court (Sharfuddin Ahmed, J.) touching the above point in Public Prosecutor v. Sundaradara Rao, 1963-2 Andh W. R. 125 was challenged by the learned Public Prosecutor. We may also mention that Mohamed Mirza, J. doubted the correctness of the above decision in his order dated 29-6-1966 (AP), referring Crimina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP138
ORDER1. This Revision Petition and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are filed by the plaintiff in O.S. 108/56 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayawada under the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff in the suit in Kamala Mining Corporation a mercantile firm doing mining business at Vijayawada represented by his managing partner Yarlagadda Venkateswarlu. The 1st defendant is Doulatram Rameshwaralal, also a mercantile firm. The 2nd defendant was added as a party in the year, 1957 as he claimed to have become a partner of the plaintiff firm. The suit itself was for an account of agency pertaining to the sale of the plaintiff's 9,000 and odd tons of iron ore and for a decree on settlement of accounts for the amount found due. There was a preliminary decree on 20th December, 1956. Then the accounts were gone into and the matter came up again before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayawada and a judgment was given on 28th day 'of February, 1963 wherein the Court considered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP223
1. Ramanujamma, as sole plaintiff filed O. S. No. 68 of 1957 in the Court of the learned subordinate Judge, Anantapur claiming arrears of maintenance and also future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600 per year on the ground that she was the exclusively kept concubine of the deceased, Anjanna Reddy, who was the son of Thimmappa and Nagamma and that she begot a son and a daughter to Anjana Reddy. There were two defendants in the case. Nagamma mentioned above was the first defendant and the second defendant. Ramayya, was her sister's son in whose favour she (Nagamma) had executed a Rift deed conveying the entire property which had come to her. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff then filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Anantapur and it was also dismissed. Thereupon the plaintiff filed this second appeal.2. The relevant facts are as follows: Anjana Reddy was the only son of his father, Thimmappa and mother Nagamma. He was a married man and had a son. But all the same, he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP306
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the decree-holder as well as the auction purchaser against the judgment of the District Judge, Guntur given on 30th September 1963. It arises in the following circumstances. 2. The 2nd petitioner had obtained a decree in Small Cause Suit No. 246 of 1956 from the Subordinate Judge's Court, Guntur against respondents 2 to 4 on 28-8-1956. The said decree was ex parte in so far as those respondents were concerned. Respondents 2 to 4 therefore filed an application, I. A. No. 1738 of 1956, to set aside the ex parte decree. Under section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the 1st respondent filed a surety bond in that I. A. On 16-12-1957 ultimately the ex parte decree was set aside and upon proper inquiry the suit of the plaintiff again was decreed against respondents 2 to 4. 8. The decree-holder, 2nd petitioner, therefore filed E. P. No. 342 of 1958 against the 1st respondent who had stood surety to I. A. No. 1738 of 1956. It is contende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP213
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J. 1. In view of an apparent conflict between a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Crompton Engineering Co., (Madras) Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Madras, : AIR1953Mad764 and a Full Bench of this Court in Midde Varaprasada Rao v. Collector of Krishna, : AIR1959AP650 (FB) on the interpretation of Section 2(17) of the Indian Stamp Act as to what would constitute a mortgage within the meaning of that section, this case has been directed to be referred by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of one of us namely Basi Reddy, J. and Gopal Rao Ekbote, J., to a Full Bench of five Judges or more for resolving the conflict.2. The facts in so far as they are relevant for the determination of the question are that the plaintiff had filed a money suit against the defendants for the price of articles supplied to Gande Chinniah, the predecessor-in-interest of the 1st and 2nd defendants for their family needs, which debt he acknowledged by a receipt dated ...
Tag this Judgment!