Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
S. China Khader Valli and ors. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, G ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1967AP288
ORDER(1) These five Writ Petitions raise a common question of law and can, therefore, be conveniently disposed of by one common judgment.(2) They arise in the following circumstances. The petitioners are the owners of contract carriages known as auto-rickshaws. They were granted permits with some conditions attached to the same. These conditions however did not include any condition to have a taxi-meter to the auto-rickshaw. At the time of issuing a fitness certificate, the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority insisted that the petitioners should have taxi-meters fixed to their auto-rickshaws and stated that, without such taxi-meters, the fitness certificate will not be issued. Since this notice was given in pursuance of the resolution passed by the State Transport Authority through the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioners did not consider it worthwhile to carry the matter in appeal. The contention of the petitioners therefore, is that, under the provision of law and ...
Abdul Nabi Vs. Gulam Murthuza Khan and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP93; 1968CriLJ303
ORDER1. The short question which must necessarily be answered in this enquiry is whether a Magistrate can, under Section 253(2) Cr. P C., discharge the accused even after the accused has put in his appearance in response to the summons issued, but without taking any evidence whatsoever under Section 252 Cr. P. C.2. The necessary facts are that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 406 I. P. C., alleging certain facts. The learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed, recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr. P. C., took cognizance of the case under Section 420 I. P. C. only, and issued summons to the accused.3. On appearance of the accused, he raised an objection that the facts as disclosed in the complaint do not make out any offence, and that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction, to try the case. The learned Magistrate upheld the contentions of the accused and dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused.4. ...
Venkataramana (K.) and ors. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ80AP
Kumarayya, J.1. This is a petition to quash the award of the labour court, Guntur, dated 26 August 1963, In Industrial Dispute No. 1 of 1963 which was referred to it under Section 10(1)(c) by the Government as per G.O. Ms. No. 962, dated 16 May 1963. The question referred to was whether the dismissal of the nine employees was justified.2. The petitioners are the workmen who have put in a service of eight to fourteen years in the respondent-company, Sri Ramdas Motor Transport (Private), Ltd., Kakinada. They were dismissed by the management as a result of an enquiry into two incidents bearing upon their misconduct. On 1 December 1962, four of the petitioners boarded at Karapa the bus APP. 1712 which was going from Kapileswarapuram to Kakinada. The checking inspector questioned the conductor of the bus as to why he had allowed those people to travel in that mufassal bus without a ticket or a free pass. Of course, they were entitled to travel in the city bus without a ticket but not by the...
Pedda Edla Ram Kishtiah Vs. Manne Pochiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1967AP148
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.(1) The only question involved in this C.M.S.A. before us is whether ollala Ambiah v. Avadhanula Mallanna, : AIR1964AP514 requires re-consideration in so far as it affects attachments of properties in execution of decrees obtained against agriculturists governed by the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (XXI of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act).(2) It may be stated that the Munsif Magistrate, Kamareddy passed an order on 30-4-1959 directing the decree-holder to obtain and produce sanction of the Collector as required under Section 47 of the Act for the sale of lands under attachment. As this order was not complied with, the execution petition was struck off. In appeal, the District Judge, Nizamabad sustained that order firstly on the ground that once the decree-holder has submitted to the order, and approached the Collector, he cannot now turn round and say that the order of the Court below passed on 30th of April, 1959 was not correct, ...
K.V. Subba Rao Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1967AP202; 1967CriLJ845
Sharfuddin Ahmed, J.(1) This is a petition challenging the order of detention made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on the 10th of November, 1965 under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 against the petitioner and seeking his release by an order in the nature of habeas corpus under Section 491 Criminal Procedure Code. The order, G.O. Ms. No. 2012 (General Administration SCD Department) dated 10th November, 1965 is to the following effect:'Whereas the Government of Andhra Pradesh are satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri K.V. Subbarao son of Sri Veerayya that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India and civil defence and the efficient conduct of military operations, it is necessary to make the following order:- Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs that the said Sri K.V. Subbarao be detained. (By Orde...
Ram Bai Vs. Suraj Karen and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1967AP383
Kumarayya, J.1 This is a petition to revise the order dated 22-6-1960 of the 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby he refused to include in the decree, the Court fee amount and also the Advocate's fee as costs of the suit, payable by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder. The plaintiff had brought her suit in forma pauperis. She could not pay the Advocate's fee which she had agreed to pay as she was possessed of no means. The advocate filed his certificate stating that the stipulated fee which was an amount certain, was not paid on account of pauperism. It was requested that the might be included in the decree as a taxable amount. A decree according was drawn with the said amount included therein. The court fee was also included in the decree. Thereafter the judgment-debtor by an application took objection to the inclusion of both the items. The objection with regard to the court fee was to the effect that the court fee was directed to be recovered by the Govern...
Shaik Sheriff Vs. Mahado Seetha Ram and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1967AP363
ORDER(1) These three Writ Petitions and the civil revision petition raise common questions of law. They can, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment. Since the facts of W. P. No. 163/65, if state, would cover all the points raised, I will briefly narrate the facts of that Writ Petition.(2) The petitioner is a businessman doing business at Adilabad in groundnut oil and other commodities. The respondent, City Municipality, Adilabad, issued a letter No. 40, dated 31-7-1963 informing the petitioner that octroi is leviable on the articles, list of which was appended to it. Of 52 items groundnut oil is one such item. The petitioner thereupon took objection that no octroi can be levied on groundnut oil. But the Municipality maintained that octroi was legally leviable and started levying it from 1-5-1963.(3) The petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the District Judge, Adilabad. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and held that groundnut oil and some other articles mentio...
Sri Ramadas Motor Transport (Private) Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ704AP
Gopalakrishnan Nair, J.1. The management of Sri Ramadas Motor Transport (Private), Ltd., Kakinada, is the petitioner. They ask for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the labour court, Guntur, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 132 of 1963. This miscellaneous petition was preferred by the management under Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputed Act, for permission of the labour Court to dismiss respondent 2, Umamaheswara Sarma, who la a 'protected workman.' The labour court dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition No. 132 of 1963 filed by the management for the purpose and directed respondent 2, who was dismissed by the management to be reinstated. Consequently the management has filed this present writ petition.2. The main argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the labour court, in passing the Impugned order, far exceeded Its legitimate powers and jurisdiction under Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is urged that the labour court cannot assume to Itself the ...
M. Venkataratnam and anr. Vs. M. Chelamayya and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967AP257
Gopalakrishnan Nair, J.1. This appeal has been placed before us as a result of the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court that it involves certain important questions of law which deserve consideration by a larger Bench. The question expressly mentioned in the order of reference to the Full Bench is:'Whether a private award passed after the curing into force of the Arbitration Act 1940 and which deals with immovable property of a value of more than Rs. 100/- is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act 1940'.Although no other question has been formulated in the order of reference to the Full Bench certain other points also seem to arise for our consideration and we shall deal with them in due course.(2) The salient facts leading up to this appeal may now be stated succinctly. The two appellants and the two respondents before us constituted a Hindu joint family which owned considerable moveable and immovable properties. Differences arose between t...
Gandikota Subramanyam Vs. Pydimarri Santa and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967AP294; 1967CriLJ1265
Ananthanarayana Ayyar, J.(1) The petitioner, Gandikota Subramanyam, has filed this petition under S. 491 Cr. P.C. praving to issue a direction in the nature of habeas corpus calling upon respondents 1 and 2 to produce the third respondent. Gandikota Swarajya -Lakshmi, before this court and to hand her over to the petitioner and pass such other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.(2) There are three respondents in this petition. The third respondent is the wife of thepetitioner. The first respondent is her mother and the second respondent is her father.(3) One Kolachana Sitamahalakshmi, who has filed an affidavit in this case on behalf of the petitioner, has a son Kolanchana Srikrishnamurthy and a daughter, Pvdimarri Santha (R.1). The latter is married to Pvdimarri Mohana Krishna Murthy (R.2). The daughter of respondents 1 and 2 is Gandikota Swarajyalakshmi (R. 3) . Kolanchana Sitamahalakshmi's sister's son was living in Cherukuganuma in West Godavari District with his w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »