Andhra Pradesh Court December 1966 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.
income-tax Officer, Gudur, and Another Vs. Maramreddy SulochanammA.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1966
Reported in: [1967]65ITR474(AP)
KUMARAYYA J. - These applications are under article 133(1) (a) and (c) of the constitution of India. The judgment against which the appeals is sought to be preferred is one of affirmance. Assuming that sub-clause (a) is attracted and the condition relating to the value of the subject-matter is fulfilled, it is further necessary, that the lapel should involve some substantial question of law. It is not possible to certify that it involves such a question. That apart, it is contended that the order against which the appeal is sought to be filed is not a final order within the meaning of article 133(1) of the Constitution of Indian for it does not for its own force bounds or affect the right of the parties, and, notwithstanding this order, it is still upon in law to the department, subject to the a of limitation, to issue fresh notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act. We may state here briefly, the fact of the case. One Narayana Reddi was an assessee and he died in 1948 leaving beh...
G. Raghavareddi Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh Home (Transport 11) D ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1970AP217
Obul Reddi, J. 1. The question involved in this writ appeal is whether the appellant was having a place of business at Venkatagiri one of the termino of the route applied for. 2. The facts necessary for determination of this question are these; In June 1964, the appellant was one of the applicants for stage carriage permit on the route Balireddipalem to Venkatagiri in Nellore district. The Regional Transport Authority, Nellore at its meeting held on 2-11-1964, after considering the applications of all the applicants before it, granted a stage-carriage permit to Badri Rajaiah the 4th respondent herein. That order was taken up in appeal to appellate authority by four of the unsuccessful applicants among whom was the appellant. The appellate authority, in its proceedings A No. 287/A1/64, dated 7-4-1966, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and granted the permit to the appellant herein. It is against that order that the matter was carried in revision to the Government a...
Kumarika Subarna Rekha Mani Devi and ors. Vs. Ramakrishna Deo and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP239
Jagan Mohan Reddy, C.J.1. I have had the advantage and benefit of perusing the judgments of my learned brothers Kumarayya J., and Venkatesam, J. As the contentions, urged before us having been set out by Kumarayya, J, in his judgment. I find it unnecessary to reiterate them in any great detail.2. The question before us is what is the court-fee payable under the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1956) (hereinafter called 'the Act') on a memorandum of appeal filed against an order rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 C PC. Order 7 Rule 11 mentions four grounds on any one of which a plaint may be rejected. It reads thus:'The plaint shall be reiected in the following cases: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed bv the Court, failed to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is writte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›