Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP69
ORDER1. This is an application under Art. 228 of the Constitution of India seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Director, Public Libraries, passed on 19th January 1965.2. The necessary facts are that, from the constituency of presidents or sarpanchas of village or gram panchayats, one member was to be elected to the Local Library Authority of the District Hyderabad. A meeting for that purpose was called on 21-12-1964 whereat the petitioner was declared elected. The result of the election was also communicated to him through a letter dated 28-12-1965. Before the meeting could be held, by a letter dated 19-1-1965, the Director of Public Libraries informed the petitioner that his election has been cancelled. This letter was served on the petitioner on 19-1-1965 itself. It is this order of the Directors of Public Libraries that is now impugned in this writ petition.3. The principal contention of Shri Triam-bak Rao Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1967AP277
Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J. (1) These two appeals are against the Judgment of our learned brother Chandrasekhara Sastry J., in CMSA 25 and 26 of 1964 whereby he reversed the judgments and decrees of the two lower Courts in applications in execution proceedings.(2) The relevant facts have been stated by our learned brother and they are as follows: The property, which is the subject-matter of these appeals, belonged to one Kuppi Reddi, who died possessed of the said properties. He left a widow, who during her lifetime, started alienating some of the properties and the nearest reversioner, one Ada Reedy, challenged those alienation's in OS No. 588 of 1954 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Chittoor. During the pendency of that suit, it may be stated that one Sivananda Reddi, who is the present appellant, then a minor, filed a suit OS. No. 215 of 1955, on the file of the same Court claiming to be the adopted son of the Kuppi Reddi. The defendants in that suit were some of the aliens as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1967AP234
Anmohan Reddy, Offg. C.J.(1) This civil miscellaneous appeal has been referred to a Bench by Basi Reddy. J., in view of conflict of Judicial opinion. The question is whether a security bond executed out of court by the father of the judgment-debtor during the execution of a decree against the judgment-debtor can be enforced by recourse to summary proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure(2) It may be stated that the decree-holder had obtained a decree in Original Suit No. 272 of 1950 on the file of the 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, and tried to attach a house alleged to belong to the judgment-debtor. But the father of the judgment-debtor filed claim petitions on two occasions when the decree holder was executing his decree against the judgment-debtor, and thus successfully prevented the execution of the decree. It is the decree-holder's contention that when he wanted to file another E.P. for arrest of the judgment-debtor, Jafar Ali, the father of the judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP41
1. These two letters Patent Appeals arise out of two connected suits O. S. 10 of 1959 and O. S. 16 of 1959 on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Krishna. The defendant who is the same in both the suits is the appellant in the above appeals which arise under the following circumstances: The plaintiff who is the same in both the suits is the liquidator of a company called the Vijayawada Engineering Metal Co., Ltd. The said Company was started in 1947 and its workshop (foundry) was worked till the year 1959 when it was closed due to mismanagement. The Company fell into debts and was accordingly wound up voluntarily. As a result thereof the plaintiff was appointed as a liquidator to wind up the said Company by disposing of the machinery, etc. As the machinery was not in working order, the plaintiff wanted to put the same in working order before he could sell the same. Accordingly, the plaintiff, entrusted the same to the defendant who was related to him and requested him to put the work...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1968)IILLJ729AP
ORDERGopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. All these writ petitions raise of law and they can therefore be conveniently disposed of by a common judgement.2. The essential facts are that prior to 1956, the work of prohibtion enforcement was attended to by the regular police force in the district of Chitteor, Nellore and Gantur and by separate Prohibtion Departent is other districts. In 1956, however, the Prohibition Department was abolished and the nwork was entrusted entirely to the Police Department. Again in 1960, the Government decided that the work of enforcement of prohibition should be taken away from the police and entrusted to a separate agency. A committee was appointed. The report of that committee was considered by the Government and consequently G.O. Ms. No. 42, dated January 1961 was issued.3. According to that Government Order, the network of enforcement of prohibition was taken away from the police and was entrusted to a new department called Excise and Prohibition Department. The exis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1967CriLJ1713
ORDERVenkatesam, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction for quashing the order of the Collector, Medak at Sangareddy, D/- 25 7-1962 cancelling the Gun licences issued to the two petitioners who are-brothers.2. It is averred in the affidavit that a Head, constable of the Police Station at Jagipet came and made enquiries on certain petitions said to have been filed by one Yadhav Rao and Maha. rudrappa before the Circle Inspector, that the petitioners submitted their explanation in writing to the Circle Inspector, and that after sometime when they were informed that an adverse order was passed they applied for a copy of the order. They received a memo from the Collector-Medak, stating that a copy of the endorsement could not be given.3. This order is impugned firstly on the-ground that it is based solely on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police; secondly that the order aces not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP34; [1968]68ITR107(AP)
1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1922. The question referred for decision is in the following terms:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the firm of Ramakrishna Transports, Kalabasthi was entitled to registration under Section 26-A of the Act.'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1950-60, the relevant accounting year being the year ending on 31-3-1959 3. The assessee is a partnership firm constituted under an instrument of partnership dated 27-3-1955. It carries on business in bus transport. Two of the partners in this firm (1) Sri Venugopala Reddy and (2) Rama-krishna Reddy, holding 3 annas share each are the co-parceners of a Hindu undivided family, the Kartha being Sri A. Balarama Reddy. The only other two partners Sri Venku Reddy and Sri M. Veerabhadravya holding 5 annas share each are strangers The firm was duly registered under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act. The share income of Sri Venugopala Reddy and Ramkrishn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP129
ORDER1. All these Writ Petitions raise common questions of law and they can therefore be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.2. The essential facts are that prior to 1956, the work of prohibition enforcement was attended to by the regular police force in the districts of Chittoor, Nellore and Guntur and by separate prohibition Department in other districts. In 1956, however, the Prohibition Department was abolished and the work was entrusted entirely to the police Department. Again in 1960, the Government decided that the work of enforcement of prohibition should be taken away from the police and entrusted to a separate agency. A committee was appointed. The report of that Committee was considered by the Government and consequently G. O. Ms. No. 42 dated 6th January, 1961 was issued.3. According to that Government Order the work of enforcement of prohibition was taken away from the Police and was entrusted to a new department called Excise and Prohibition Department. The exis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP17; 1968CriLJ20
1. The Stale has filed this appeal against an order passed by the Munsif Magistrate Visakhapatnam acquitting the respondent from the charges under Sections 7 and 16(1) read with Section 2(1)(a) and (1) and Rule 44(B) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 19542. The short facts are that the Municipal Health Officer and Sanitary Inspector, Visakhapatnam Municipality filed a complaint alleging that on 19-8 1963 at about 6-30 a.m. accused was carrying milk in a brass vessel for sale. P.W. 2 the Food Inspector wanted to purchase the milk and requested some persons to assist as mediators but none agreed to act. In the meantime P W 1 who was also a Sanitary Inspector at the time came that side and in his presence P.W 2 purchased the sample of milk from the respondent after paving him 76 paise and obtained a receipt under Ex P-2. Then according to the usual procedure, he divided the milk into three equal parts and put them in three bottles and then sealed them. One was given to the accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP274
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. ThisWrit Appeal is against the interim orders passed by our learned brother, Gopal Rao Ekbote, J., directing the respondent, pending the disposal of the Writ Petition No. 919 of 1966, to ply a bus on the route Mangalagiri-Viziawada. It appears that two buses have been permitted on this route under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (here-inafter called the Act). Applications were called for and the respondent and one Gun-naraju were given permits by the Regional Transport Authority Guntur Against this, a number of appeals were 'preferred, and the appellate authority set aside the permit granted to the respondent and instead granted a permit to the appellant. In so far as Gunnaraju's permit is concerned, it was confirmed. Against this order of the appellate authority, the respondent filed a revision before the Government. No revision was filed against grant of permit to Gun-naraju. The Government by an order dated 20-5-1966 dismissed the revision and confirme...
Tag this Judgment!