Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Public Prosecutor Vs. Hatam Bhai and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP99; 1969CriLJ368
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the 4th City Magistrate, Hyderabad given on 16th March, 1965, whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. 2. The essential facts are that the accused are the partners of the shop named and styled as 'Fida Hussain All Hussain' Medical and General Stores, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. The accused held Licence No. 117/62 in Form 20-A and 148/62 in Form 20-B issued on 1-1-1962 by the Drugs Controller, Andhra Pradesh. The accused deal in medicines manufactured by various firms. 3. On 3-7-1963, on getting information that the accused have been selling misbranded and spurious drugs like Tincture Iodine, Eucalyptus Oil, Glucose Powder and Woodwards Celebrated Gripe Water etc., the Drugs Inspector (P. W. 1) accompanied by P. W. 2 Drugs Inspector Nanded, and a Police Officer and Panchayatdars went to the shop of the accused at about 3 p. m. They sent one Suryakanth (P. W. 3) to purchase specimens of drugs. Accused 1 was at the counter and was at the ...
Movva Butchamma Vs. Movva Venkateswararao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP136
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The Applicant in this appeal under C1. 15 of the Letters Patent filed the suit out of which the appeal arises for a mandatory injunction for removal of certain obstructions placed on plots marked 2 (a) and (3) (a) in the plan and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the right of the plaintiff to use the street A B C D for the passage of men, cattle and carts for reaching plot No. 1 belonging to her. The suit was based on the allegations that A B C D was a public street that the plots marked 2(a) and 3(a) were parts of the public street and that the defendants had encroached upon plots 2(a) and 3(a) and caused certain obstructions to be placed therein which interfered with the right of the plaintiff to the free use of the street for the passage of men, cattle and carts. Both the lower Courts found the facts substantially plaintiff, namely, that A B C D was a public street that plots 2(a) and 3(a) were parts of th...
Official Receiver, Kurnool Vs. Vale Pedda Mounamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1967
Reported in: AIR1968AP336
Venkatesam, J.1. This second appeal comes before us on a reference by out learned brother, Chandrasekhara Sastry, J., in view of the question of general importance involved. The facts relevant for determination of the question in controversy are as follows:--The second appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, in A.S No. 54/1961 on his file, affirming the decision of the District Munsif, Kurnool, in O. S. No. 34 of 1960. Thai suit was filed by two persons. Vale Pedda Mounamma and Yasamuguru Lingamma for recovery of Rupees 1,500 due on the foot of a simple mortgage. Ex. A-1, dated 23-1-1950 executed by defendants 4 and 5 in their favour for Rs. 4,000 mortgaging items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule They prayed for a decree for sale of items 1 and 3 and right to proceed against Rs. 1,232 14-0, the balance of sale-proceeds of item 2 (house in Kurnool Municipality), which was sold in execution of a prior mortgage decree in O. S. No 91 of 1954 on the f...
Raja Vs. V. V. R. K. Yachendra Kumara Rajah of Venkatagiri V. Income-t ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR772(AP)
VAIDYA J. - Writ Appeals Nos. 34, 35, 217 and 218 of 1966 arise out of the judgment of our learned brother Jaganmohan Reddy J. (as he then was) in Writ Petitions Nos. 539, 540, 541 and 1540 of 1964 filed by the petitioners for the issuance of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order or direction prohibiting the respondent, i.e., Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Nellore, in Writ Petitions Nos. 539, 540 and 1540/64 and the Income-tax Officer, Mica Circle, Nerllore, in Writ Petition No. 541/64 from proceeding with his proposals to reopen the petitioners assessments.The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 541/64, Raja of Venkatagiri, challenged the notice issued to him in or about March, 1964, for the proposed reopening of assessment from 1950-51 onwards under section 148 of the Indian Income-tax Act, on the ground that the interim payments made by the Government under the Madras Estates Abolition Act, XXVI of 1948, were income and as such they had escaped assessment. Writ Pet...
A.M. Ansari and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP399
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioners in these 50 writ petitions pray (1) that the respondents be directed not to demand, contrary to law, payment of stamp duty on the deeds to be executed by them in respect of the right to collect and take away beedi leaves, bamboo or standing timber, s the case may be; (2) that they be further directed not to demand sales-tax from those petitioners who have not paid the same or those who have paid on some instalments but not on the others; and (3) that they be further prohibited from demanding payment of stamp duty on the amount of security to be deposited as if it is a mortgage, under Art. 35 (a) of the Stamp Act or in respect of deposits already made for the current year or in respect of contracts to be entered into in future. Prayers (1) and (3)are common to all the petitions and prayer (2) is only in respect of some petitions while in other petitions the payments have not been challenged. In view of the legal implications, it is necessary t...
Kambhampati Venkata Satyanarayana Vs. Kambhampati Peda Subbarao and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP29
Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. Our learned brother Chandrasekhara Sastry, J., has referred this second appeal to a Bench for the determination of two questions involved therein viz., (1) whether a proceeding under Sec. 107, Cr. P. C., can be held to be a prosecution for the purpose of maintaining a suit for damages for malicious prosecution and (2) whether the findings regarding the malice and want of reasonable and probable cause are findings reasonable and probable cause are findings of fact whether they are findings which can be canvassed in second appeal. These questions arise from a suit instituted by the first plaintiff, kambhampati Peda Subbarao and plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, his sons, the 4th plaintiff who is the father-in-law of the 1st plaintiff's first son by name Krishna Murthy, the 5th plaintiff who is the father-in-law of the 2nd plaintiff and the 6th plaintiff who is the son-in-law of the 1st plaintiff against the brother of the 1st plaintiff, Kambhampati Venkata Satyanarayana a...
N.V.L. Narasimha Rao Vs. Kotha Raghuramayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP68
ORDER1. This is yet another case where the Election Petition has to be dismissed in limine under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the people Act. This time it is a case of non-compliance with the requirement of Section 82(b) of the Representation of the people Act. The facts bearing on the question are few and may be shortly stated.2. In the recent general elections for Guntur Parliamentary constituency held on February 21, 1967, six persons were duly nominated as candidates for election. Of these only four, including the petitioner Shri N. V. L. Narasimha Rao and the 1st respondent, Shri Kotha Raghuramayya seem to have contested for the seat. Sri Gullapalli Venkata Punnaiah Sastri who was also a duly nominated candidate did not choose to contest. He withdrew his candidature within the prescribed period. Eventually as a result of poll the 1st respondent was returned from the constituency. His election has now been called in question by the petitioner by means of Election Petition...
Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P. Vs. S.R.Y. Sivaramaprasad Bahadur.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR560(AP)
VAIDYA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.The question referred for our opinion is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interim compensation of Rs. 80,843, Rs. 40,422, Rs. 1,21,146 and Rs. 80,391 received by the assessee under section 50 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, was of a capital nature and not liable to tax ?'The consolidated statement of the case agreed to by the parties states that the assessee Hindu undivided family was holder of the estate of Devarkota and Challapalli. This estate was abolished under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act). From the notified date the estate came to be vested in the Government. The total compensation payable to the assessee has not yet been determined. However, as contemplated under section 5...
Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderaba ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP84; [1967]66ITR303(AP)
Venkatesam, J.1. The question referred to us for decision under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is as follows:'Whether the sanitary fittings and pipe-lines installed in the King Kothi Branch of the Hotel constituted 'Plant' within the meaning of Section 10 (5) of the Act, and whether the assessee is entitled to development rebate in respect thereof under Section 10 (2) (vi-b) of the Act.'2. The facts as mentioned in the statement of the case are as follows;- The assessee, the Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad, is a registered firm running a hotel at Secunderabad, with branches in Hyderabad. The assessment-year under reference is 1960-61, for which the previous is the year ending on 30-9-1959. In the previous year, the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 57,154/- for installing sanitary fittings, and a further sum of Rs. 1,370/- for pipe-line fittings. On both these items, the assessee claimed development rebate before the income-tax Officer under Section 10 (2) (vi-b...
Taj Mahal Hotel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR366(AP)
VENKATESAM J. - The question referred to us for decision under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is as follows :'Whether the sanitary fittings and pipelines installed in the King Kothi branch of the hotel constituted plant within the meaning of section 10(5) of the Act, and whether the assessee is entitled to development rebate is respect therefore under section 10(2) (vib) of the Act ?'The facts as mentioned in the statement of the case are as follows : The assessee, the Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad, is a registered firm running a hotel a Secunderabad, with branches in Hyderabad. The assessment year under reference is 1960-61 for which the previous year is the year ending September 30, 1959. In the previous year, the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 57,154 for installing sanitary fittings, and a further sum of Rs. 1,370 for pipeline fittings. On both these items, the assessee claimed development rebate before the Income-tax Officer under section 10(2) (vib) of ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›