Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Kasireddy Varahalu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Home (Transport Iii) De ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP1
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. Before we set out the questions requiring consideration of this Full Bench, it would be necessary to set out the facts briefly. The Regional Transport Authority, Visakhapatnam, invited applications on 18-7-1957 for two permits, under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act I hereinafter called 'the Act'). on the route Visakhapatnam to Narasannapeta Out of the number of applicants, two persons were granted permits by the Regional Transport Authority on 31-5-1958 23 Persons filed separate appeals to the State Transport Authority, the then Appellate Authority which considered the matter on 27-11-1958. It set aside the order of the R T. A. and remanded the case. By virtue of writ petitions in the High Court, consideration by the R. T. A. was stayed. It was only on 4-6-1962 the matter was considered afresh by the R. T. A., who grant-ed two permits one to each of the petitioners in the Writ petitions. Appeals were again preferred to the Appellate Authority. In the ap...
P. Mastanaiah Vs. Delimitation Commissioner, New Delhi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1969AP1
Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother, Gopalrao Ekbote, J., dismissing a Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging a notification of the Delimitation Commission issued under Section 10 of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962. It appears that three seats had to be reserved for the Nellore District, and the question that the Delimitation Commission had to decide was as to which of the constituencies these seats have to be allotted or assigned. Prior to the present delimitation, it is stated that Gudur, Sulurpet, and Venkatagiri each had one reserved seat for scheduled castes. This time, the Delimitation Commission instead of assigning or allotting one reserved seat to Gudur, has allotted the same to Sarvepalli, which has a general population of 1,33,140 and a scheduled castes population of 30,483 while Gudur has a general population of 1,27,566 and a scheduled castes population of 32, 481.The challenge is with regard to this change...
P. Venkata Somaraju and ors. Vs. Principal Munsif-magistrate, Bhimavar ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP22
ORDER1. Kallakuru Village Panchayat has 9 members. Elections were held on 30-5-1964. The 3rd respondent in W. P. No 599 of 1966 was elected as Sarpanch subsequently Six members out of the total strength of 9 gave notice expressing their intention to move a no-confidence motion under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchavat Act. 1964, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.' on 16-3-1966 Accepting the motion, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a notice on 24 3 1968 fixing the date of the meeting as 12-4-66 where at the no-confidence motion was to be considered. The 3rd respondent Sarpanch filed O. P. No 33 of 1966 on the file of the Principal Munsif-Magistrate's Court. Bhimavaram under Section 22 of the Act alleging inter alia that one of the members has incurred disqualification for not attending three consecutive meetings. The Sarpsnch also filed an application during the pendency of the said O. P. for the issue of an interim injunction directing the said member not to vote at ...
E.S. Velayudhan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP50
Obul Reddy, J.1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ quashing the notice dated 12-5-1964 and the order dated 31-8-1964 issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh (the first respondent) directing the petitioner to retire from 1-9-1964 was referred for disposal to a Bench by our learned brother Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote before whom it came up in the first instance.2. The petitioner was originally recruited as a clerk in the Income-tax Officer's office, Cochin on 29-9-33 & was a permanent member of the public services of the erstwhile Cochin State till the date of formation of the United States of Travancore-Cochin on 1-7-1949 and since then a member of the Public Services of the Travancore Cochin State till the date of the federal financial integration of Part B States on 1-4-1950 pursuant to the agreement between the Rajpramukh of Travancore-Cochin and the President ...
The Public Prosecutor (A.P.) Vs. Mukha Singh Chanda and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC426(AP)
ORDER1. The question which arises in this appeal is whether the non-service of notice to show cause why an assessment already made should not be reopened, notwithstanding the fact that the ex parte reassessment order and the notice of demand have subsequently been served, would none the less affect the assessment order because of non-compliance with the fundamental provisions of the statute ?2. The facts in this case are these: There was an assessment upon a firm known as 'Kohli Motors, Bezwada' for the year 1957-58 under the Sales Tax Act. The said firm consisted of three partners, A-1, A-2 and A-3, which firm was dissolved on 1st August, 1959, and it is not denied that the notice of dissolution was given to the Sales Tax Authorities under the relevant rules. Under the deed of dissolution, it appears that all taxes are to be paid by the first accused. Subsequent to the dissolution, it was found that certain turnover escaped assessment and a notice to show cause was issued to A-1 to A-...
Mohd. Dilawar Ali Vs. Andhra Pradesh Muslim Wakf Board and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1967AP291; (1968)ILLJ305AP
Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.(1) This is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Gopal Rao Ekbote, J., dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellant on the ground that the order of the Administrative Committee of the Wakf Board was ratified by the Board, and that at any rate the appellant is estopped from denying the authority of the Administrative Committee having applied for being appointed to one of the posts advertised by the Board. The writ petition was filed by the appellant in the following circumstances:-The appellant who was a Deputy Collector in one of the Jagirs of the erstwhile Hyderabad State, namely Paigab, was appointed first in a temporary leave vacancy for one and a half months and subsequently in a vacancy caused by the termination of the services of one Gulam Mohiuddin, an Inspecting Officer, as a probationer and posted to Nizamabad in april, 1957. After that appointment there is nothing on record to show that his probation was declared. However, it is clear t...
Nagasuri Raghaveswar Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, A. P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-1966
Reported in: [1967]66ITR496(AP)
KUMARAYYA J. - The two questions referred for decision by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act are :'1. Whether the department was justified in reopening the assessment of the assessee under section 34(1)(a) for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52 ?2. Whether the amount received by the assessee under the sub-leases dated February 21, 1950, and November 20, 1956, were capital receipts and should not have been assessed to income-tax ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The assessment years are 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1957-58, the respective accounting years being 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1956-57. The assessment for the year 1957-58 is the original assessment whereas in relation to the other two years it is reassessment. The controversy mainly relates to the nature of the amount received by the assessee under the two documents dated February 21, 1950. and November 20, 1956. The question is whether in the hands of the assessee i...
Manora Bai Vs. Sultan Bakath Begum and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP113
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against an order of the IVth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad given on 29-12-1962.2. The essential facts are that five decree-holders obtained money decrees against one Sultan Bakath Begum from the City Civil Courts. The petitioner obtained a decree for Rs. 15,575-20 np. The 1st respondent Ama Ravamma obtained a decree for Rs. 27,435-20 nP. We are not concerned with regard to the decree amounts of the other decree-holders. It is however necessary to mention that one Keshagiri Rao, who had obtained & decree for Rs. 6,000 against the same judgment-debtor, from the 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court and in whose favour the order of rateable distribution is made, is not made a party to this revision petition. The four decree-holders except the 1st respondent applied in their execution petitions for the attachment of a certain amount held by the receiver appointed by the High Court in C. S. No. 13 of 1958. The Judgment-debtor was o...
Puranam Venkata Lakshmamma Vs. T.J. Ratnam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP33
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the 3rd Additional District Munsif. Vijayawada, returning the plaint in O.S. 525 64 on his file under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. What the District Munsif has done in this case is this. An application was filed by the arbitrators under Section 14 of the Act and the Court directed the application to be registered as a suit and it was numbered as O. S. 526/64. The learned Munsif felt that the suit O. S. 525/64) is misconceived and directed the return of the plaint for following the procedure laid down in Section 14 of the Arbitration Act It is not known when it was first numbered as an O. P. and again under orders of the Court when it was registered as a suit and why the District Munsif should think it is misconceived and ask the petitioner to follow once again the procedure laid down in Section 14 of the Arbitration Act Under Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Arbitration Act applications made under Section 14 of the Act shall...
B. R. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR53(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY C. J. - We had directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case on the following question, viz., whether the inclusion of the entire interest credited in the account books of Cine Supplies Private Ltd., Bangalore, in the joint loan account of M/s. B. R. Patel, I. A. Patel and H. R. Patel in the assessments of the assessee is legal ?The statement of the case discloses the following facts : The assessee is an individual and the assessment years are 1952-53 and 1953-54, for which the relevant accounting years are Divali years ending with October 31, 1951, and October 18, 1952, respectively. The assessments complained of were completed under section 23(3) read with section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), proceedings under the later section having been initiated on the ground that the interest received from Cine Supplies Private Ltd., was not disclosed in the original returns. The case of the assessee B. R. Patel was th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »