Andhra Pradesh Court February 1967 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.
Neelam Mangathayaramma and ors. Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Auth ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP180
ORDER1. The petitioners in the above Writ Petitions have been plying stage carriages and have applied for the renewal of their permits. One of the conditions attached to the existing permit in each case was that the vehicle should carry a maximum under of sitting passengers and a fixed number of standing passengers in two rows besides the driver and conductor. Before their permits were due to expire they applied to the concerned Regional Transport Authority for renewal of the same under Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, by virtue of the powers delegated to him under Rule 169 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules 1964, sanctioned renewal of the permits and granted certain time for the production of the relevant records for making the necessary endorsements. It was also stated in the order that the vehicle in each case should be produced before the Motor Vehicles Inspector 'for inspection and for recommending the number of standing pa...
Durvuri Papi Reddi and ors. Vs. Duvvuri Rami Reddi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP362
ORDER1. This question petition is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore, given on 30th August, 1966. It arises in the following circumstances: -2. The respondent plaintiff Duvvuru Rami Reddi filed O. S. No. 73 of 1959 through has next friend, his daughter P. Rangamma. The next friend described the plaintiff as a person of unsound mind. The suit was for partition of the properties set out in the plaint schedules. The suit was instituted against his brother, the first defendant and others. It was inter alia alleged that the plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers and are sons of one Ranga Reddy. The plaintiff has no sons, but has five daughters. One of the five daughters is now the next friend of the plaintiff, defendants 2 to 5 being the other daughters. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was from the beginning a man of weak intellect and was not capable of managing the properties. The first defendant was looking after the same. The plaintiff's mental...
Katragadda Rajagopalarao Vs. the Chief Election Commissioner Talaktora ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-1967
Reported in: AIR1968AP218
FACTSParas 1 to 6. The petitioner, a voter of the Vijayawada East Assembly Constituency which is delimited by the Delimitation Commission's Order, challenged the order of the Chief Election Commissioner purporting to exercise his authority under S. 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, by which he directed the Electoral Registration Officer, Vijayawada, East Assembly Constitutency to delete parts 6, 7 and 8 of the electoral roll of Vijayawada East Assembly Constituency and to add the same to the electoral rolls of the Vijayawada West Assembly Constitutency. The order of the Delimitation Commission made it clear that the area in question to which parts 6, 7 and 8 of the electoral roll related never formed part of the East Assembly Constituency but formed part of the West Assembly Constitutency. The Election Commission was thus rectifying the electoral roll to make it conform to the order of the Delimitation Commission. The impugned order was challenged on grounds that the El...
Sri Venugopalaswamy Varu Temple Vs. Visweswara Prasad and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP24
1. These two appeals arise out of O. S. No. 220 of 1959. These appeals are filed against the judgment of the First Additional Subordinate judge, Vijayawada, given on 19th July, 1962.2. The necessary facts in order to appreciate the contentions raised before me may be briefly stated. Late Sri Velagaloti Dasaradharamayya was an eminent advocate and Public Prosecutor at Vijayawada. He acquired considerable immovable as well as movable properties from the earning of his practice as an advocate. He executed a will on 24-11-1933 which was subsequently amended by a codicil dated 14-9-1934 whereby he disposed of his personal as well as ancestral properties. In so far as his self-acquired property was concerned, he gave life interest to his three sons and the remainder was given to the grandsons. In the ancestral properly the three sons, since they were coparceners, they got the property in entirety after the death of the said Dasaradharamayya. Kodandaramayya was one of the three sons. This Kod...
Ramsetty Butchaiah and ors. Vs. State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ542
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. This is an appeal by the five accused against their conviction by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad under the judgment dated 10th November, 1964.2. The necessary facts in order to appreciate the contentions raised before us by the learned Advocate appearing for the accused may briefly be stated. Sri M. Lakshminarayana, an advocate of several years practice, owns 115 acres and 38 guntas of lands in Bogaram village known as Mattambavi and Nimmabavi lands. He is alleging that Ramisetti Mallayya and the members of his family have been cultivating these lands on lease. A-1 and A-2 are the sons of Ramisetti Mallayya while accused 3 is his brother, A-4 is the son of A-3 and A-5 is the son-in-law of Ramisetti Mallayya. Ramisetti Mallayya and the members of his family have been disputing the ownership of P.W. 3 and setting up their own title. Because of this dispute, P.W. 3 instituted several proceedings. He filed an application before the Revenue divisional Officer, Hyd...
Garuda Satyanarayana Vs. Grandhi Venkatachalapathi Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP131
1. This second appeal is filed by the 2nd plaintiff, whose suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below. 2. The necessary facts in order to appreciate the contentions raised before me are that the 2nd plaintiff, who purchased the building from the official Receiver, the 1st plaintiff, instituted the present suit firstly for a declaration that the lane marked AKJH in the suit plan is joint: secondly, for a declaration that the landing space and a space of 2 feet beyond to the 2nd plaintiff; and thirdly for a declaration that he has got right of easement to light and air to all the doors and windows and finally for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the wall B H-2 raised unauthorisedly by him. It was alleged inter alia that G. Krishnamurthy was the owner of a house situated in the main road. Anakapalle described in the plan attached to the plaint. It was the ancestral property of the said Krishnamurthy and his brothers. IN a partition, the said building fell t...
Steelsworth Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR366(AP)
G. MEHROTRA C.J. - Income-tax Reference No. 1/63 arises out of a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Calcutta. The following question of law has been referred to this court for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that part of the condition mentioned in clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, namely, not formed by transfer to a new business of building, machinery or plant used in a business which was being carried on or before the 1st day of April, 1948, had been satisfied by the assessee so as to entitle it to the relief envisaged in that section for the assessment years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56 ?'As the Tribunal has refused to refer certain further questions which, according to the assessee, arose out of the order of the Tribunal, on an application made before this court the Tribunal was asked to state a case. The Tribunal has thus stated the case and referred the following two qu...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›