Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
C. Satyanarayana and ors. Vs. Kanumarlapudi Lakshmi Narasimham
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP330
1. The defendants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kavali confirming substantially the judgment of the trial Court. The respondent (plaintiff) filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 675-9-0 as amount due from the firm of C. Satyanarayana and K. Kotilingam Setty and Company, and its partners It was contended that the 3rd defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 500 on 25-2-1953 from the plaintiff at Janardanapuram of Kandukur Taluk. Since the amount has not been paid, the suit was laid. Defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 contended that the 3rd defendant did not borrow any money, and they also pleaded in the alternative that even if the 3rd defendant had borrowed any money, the firm is not liable to pay that amount, nor the other partners are liable. 2.The 3rd defendant in his written statement denied that he ever borrowed Rs. 500 from the respondent. He contended that on that day, i. e. on 25-2-1953 he was not at Janardanapuram, but he w...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kollipara Subba Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ278
Obul Reddi, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent a hotel Keeper of Bapatla of an offence under Section 16(1) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bapatla in C.C. 11/65.2. The case against the respondent a hotel keeper was that on 14.5.64 he sold the Food Inspector P. W. S sample ghee of 7 palams for Re. 1-50 Np. and that on analysis by the Public Analyst it was found to be adulterated. On the basis of the report Ex. P-1 of the Analyst, the respondent was prosecuted before the lower Court. The Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that the respondent is not a dealer in ghee and the ghee sold to the Food Inspector was not intended to be served along with the meals and there is no proof of its having been used in the preparation of articles of food and hence does not constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Act, although he was in possession of adulterated ghee. He fo...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Baratam Paparao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ247
Obul Reddi, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the two respondents (accused) of an offence under Sections 16(1) and 7 read with Sections 2(i) and (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rule 44(b) and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1965 by the Additional District Munsif-Magistrate, Srikakulam.2. The case against the two accused persons is this. A-2 is the servant of A-1 and on 21.5.1964 A-2 was taking three cans of milk tied on to the cycle and A-1 was following A-2. Then the Food Inspector, P.W. 1 asked the two accused to sell the milk for the purpose of analysis in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, and thereupon A-1 and A-2 who were keeping two cans separately, took out one can and were pouring milk in the bottles. At this stage, both the accused ran away, with the result that the consideration for the sample purchased could not be paid to either of them. The sample was divided into three parts and one bottle w...
Gaddameedi Peeriah and ors. Vs. Narayana Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP116
ORDER1. O. S. No. 8/64 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate's Court, Narayankhed, was filed by two plaintiffs against twenty defendants praying for a decree on the following terms:(1) It may be declared that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land. (2) The plaintiffs may be put in possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants. (3) The future mesne profits during the pendency of the case till the recovery of the possession (upto the date of return) of the suit land by the plaintiffs. (4) The costs of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiffs. (5) Any other further relief or any equivalent relief for which the plaintiffs are entitled may be awarded. 2. The plaintiff's case is that they are the owners of the suit land and are in possession and enjoyment of the same in their own right. While so the defendants took possession of the suit land on 13-12-1961 illegally with the support of the influential persons of the village and some goondas. That is stated to be the cause of...
N. Ekambaram and ors. Vs. Sri Venkatachalapathi Mills Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas693(AP)
Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.1. The suit O.S. No. 75 of 1959 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Chittoor, was filed by Sri Venkatachalapathy Mills Ltd., Puttur, represented by its managing director Sri A. Chengiah Chetty, against five defendants, who were said to be the ex-directors of the plaintiff-company. The suit was filed for a decree directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff-company the amount claimed, viz., Rs. 96,419 with further interest at 51/2 per cent. from the date of the plaint till realisation, and for directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff-company the costs of the suit with interest thereon.2. The basis on which the suit was filed was that the defendants, when they were the directors of the plaintiff-company, advanced a loan to a firm of which they were partners or to a private company of which they were directors or members and this was contrary to the provisions of Section 86D of the Indian Companies Act, 1...
In Re: Dolgonti Raghava Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP117; 1968CriLJ447
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, given on 6th January 1965 whereby he confirmed the sentence awarded to the 1st accused and also confirmed the directions given in regard to A-2 that she should be acquitted on condition that she executed a bond for good behaviour finding them guilty under Section 494 I. P. C 2. The relevant facts are that A-1 married A-2 in the temple at Kottagattu on 1-2-1964 at about 4 a.m. on a Jatra day although his marriage with the complainant subsisted It was therefore contended that the two accused have committed the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. Some other persons were also impleaded as accused under the charge of abetting in the marriage 3. Accused 1 and 2 denied their marriage, and they also denied the charge. The trial Court examined six witnesses on be-half of the prosecution. Two witnesses also were examined on behalf, of the accused. Upon this material, the trial Court reached the conclus...
Nagabhushanam Vs. Ankam Ankaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP74
ORDER1. These two writ appeals (Writ Appeals 127 and 139 of 1966) arise out of an order in Writ Petition No. 919 of 1966 made under Article 226 of the Constitution by our learned brother Gopal Rao Ekbote, J., quashing the orders passed by the State Transport Authority in A. 43/A1/65 in item 3 dated 9-3-66 and the order passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G. O. Rt. 2079 Home (Transport II) Department dated 20th May, 1966 confirming the first cited order of the State Transport Authority. Writ Appeal 127/66 is filed by the fourth respondent in W. P. 919/66 and W. A. No. 139/66 and W. P. 1311/66 are filed by one Ankayya, the petitioner in W. P. 919/66.2. The facts leading to the two writ appeals and writ petition 1311/66 are these: Applications were called for the grant of two pucca stage carriage permits on the route Mangalagiri to Vijayawada and there were 27 applicants for the two permits. Among them arc the two appellants and Gunaraju, the fourth respondent in W. P. 1311/66. ...
Sree Ramachandra Ginning and Oil Mills and ors. Vs. the State of Andhr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC354(AP)
Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. These batch of special appeals primarily involve the following questions, namely: -(1) Whether the orders of the Board of Revenue in rejecting the revisions under Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (6 of 1957) (hereinafter called 'the Act') filed against the orders of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, are illegal and constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction.(2) Whether the orders of the Board of Revenue are vitiated by (a) failure to afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present and prove their cases and/or (b) failure to consider the contentions of the appellants and/or (c) failure to assign any reasons to reject the revision petitions; and(3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the cases the assessment to tax on turnover is illegal and invalid.2. We will state the facts in Special Appeal No. 2 of 1963, which are typical of the facts of the other cases in which the above questions arise.3. The appellant, who has a...
In Re: Mikkineni Maruthi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP125
ORDER1. The short but important Question which is raised by Mrs. K. Amareswari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since no summons was issued to the accused under Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act, his conviction is vitiated 2. In order to appreciate the implications of this contention, it is necessary to mention a few facts. The accused was charged by the Special Motor Vehicle Inspector. Vijavawada for the offences under Section 123 read with Section 42(1) Section 112 read with Rule 213 (IV) and (V) and Section 112 read with Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was alleged inter alia that on 30-12-1964 at 8-30 p.m the accused was found driving motor vehicle No APK 7002 which was overloaded by five passengers and was being driven without permit. No trip sheet also was maintained The driver had no driving 3. The accused in his statement under Section 342, Cr. P. C. admitted the offences. The learned Magistrate found the accused therefore guilty of the offences and c...
Paturi Veeranna and anr. Vs. Pathuri Seethamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-1966
Reported in: AIR1969AP15
1. The defendants are the appellants before me. The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Pathuri Seethamma, the respondent-plaintiff, who is the widow of Butchi Ramanna. Butchi Ramanna died in 1933 having divided from his brothers, Veeranna and Venkanna. On the death of Butchi Ramanna, his properties devolved on Seethamma, the widow. She, however, executed a surrender deed after four years of her husband's death in favour of Venkanna and Veeranna who were the nearest reversioners to the estate. They, in turn, executed a maintenance deed promising to pay Rs. 25 per year besides promising to supply some chillies and redgram. The first defendant is the wife of Venkanna and the second defendant is the daughter. The third defendant is the brother-in-law of Veeranna. The fourth defendant is his son. The plaintiff contended that the maintenance amount is too meager in view of the rise in prices and, therefore, pleaded that the amount be enhanced. She, therefore, wanted Rs. 300 per...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »