Andhra Pradesh Court April 1968 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.
Syed Jalal and ors. Vs. Tarrgopal Ram Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1970AP19
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. 1. The question which has to be answered in this Letters Patent Appeal, is, where tow distinct decrees are passed in a suit and an appeal is preferred against only one of them, can it be said that it is an appeal against a portion of the decree in a suit and the final decree in such appeal would save limitation for execution of the other decree from which no appeal was filed under Article 182 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. 2. The facts which give rise to this problem may briefly be stated. The appellant filed O. S. No. 476 of 1944 for possession of about 1 acre and 60 cents of land and in the alternative for partition of the same into three equal shares and for separate possession of one such share. The 1st defendant in the suit is the plaintiff's father and the 2nd defendant is his only brother. The 3rd defendant obtained a sale deed D/- 14-6-1944 from the 1st defendant for a consideration of Rupees 1500/-. The plaintiff contended that the sale was not bi...
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rikabchand Siremal and Co. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC304(AP)
Sambasiva Rao, J.1. The question we have to decide in these cases is: when under Section 14(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act) a best judgment assessment is made, whether the penalty proceedings under Section 14(2) could be started after the lapse of a period of more than 4 years from the expiry of the year to which the best judgment assessment relates.2. The State of Andhra Pradesh is the petitioner in all these revision cases. The respondents are businessmen belonging to East Godavari and Cuddapah districts. They are dealers in a variety of businesses like fancy goods, ghee, pulses etc.' The assessing authority detected some suppressions in their turnovers and made best judgment assessments under Section 14(1) against them. In addition, he also commenced penalty proceedings under Section 14(2). It is common case between the parties that such penalty proceedings were commenced after the lapse of 4 years from the expiry of ...
Marram Ramachandraiah and Vs. State and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1969AP414
ORDER1. The several petitioners are merchants carrying on business in various commodities including jaggery. The validity of the Andhra Pradesh Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963, particularly in its applicability to jaggery, is questioned in this Writ Petition. The principal submission of Mr. Venkatramanaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act which enables the Central Government to delegate its powers to the State Government and its officers and in pursuance of which the Andhra Pradesh Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order has been made by the State Government is ultra vires as it offends Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Venkataramaniah submits that where the Central Government makes orders providing for the control of production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities under Section 3 of the Act, those orders are subject to Parliamentary review, since Section 3(6) of the Act requires that every order made under thi...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Malla Rama Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ275
Narasimham, J.1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of the accused in CC. 209 of 1965 on the file of the Munsif-Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, of an offence of the sale of adulterated curd to the Food Inspector, punishable under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act.2. The facts of the case were that the accused was a regular curd vendor and known as such to the Food Inspector, Visakhapatnam Municipality, P. W. 1. On 23-6-1965 at 10-15 a.m. he (P. W. 1) saw the accused at Door No. 13-9-18 in Dandu Bazaar Road, carrying buffalo curd in two aluminium vessels. He stopped him and tested the said curd and suspected it to be adulterated. He called the residents of the house, P. W. 2 and another, to be mediators and purchased 3/4 seer of the said curd paying the accused 19 paise and obtained Ex. P. 4 receipt. He then served on the accused Form 6 notice, duplicate copy of which is Ex. P. 5. Then he put...
Puttaparatti Atchamma and anr. Vs. T. Bayanna and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1969AP196
ORDER1. This revision, which is directed against the decree and order in C. M. A. 3/62 on the file of the learned District Judge, Anantapur, has been referred to the Bench by Chandrasekara Sastry, J. as he then was, in view of the conflict between the decisions in Kondipalli Tatireddy v. Ramachandra Row, AIR 1921 Mad 402 and Govindarajulu v. Sivarama Krishnan, : AIR1953Mad785 on the one hand and Venkatalingam v. Ranganayakulu, ILR (1955) Mad 675 on the other on the question as to ' whether a sale can be set aside under Order 21, Rule 72 C. P. C. on the ground that the decree-holder-purchaser had not obtained leave to bid, without the judgment-debtor proving also that he sustained substantial loss or injury.'2. The petitioners obtained a decree against the respondents, in O. S. 43/57 on the file of the District Munsif, Anantapur, on the foot of mortgage. Two houses belonging to the respondents were brought to sale in execution of that decree and were purchased by the petitioners themsel...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Hindustan Motors Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1970AP176; 1970CriLJ659
1. The Motor Vehicles Inspector, Nalgonda, filed a petty case charge sheet against Hindustan Motors Ltd., Uttara Para, Hugli district, West Bengal, alleging that on 30-10-1965 near Korlapad on the National Highway NO. 9, he (the Motor Vehicles Inspector) had found eleven chassis being taken along the public road without having paid any tax on any of the chassis and that, therefore, the accused committed an offence under S. 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1963 read with Ss. 4 and 11 of the said Act.2. It was admitted by the accused that the eleven chassis were taken without bodies on the public road towards Madras without payment of tax in Andhra Pradesh State. But it was pleaded that the chassis were taken to Madras for purpose of building bodies and for ultimate sale thereafter. Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1963 runs as follows:--'The Government, by notification from time to time, direct that a tax shall be levied on every motor...
Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Vs. Payment of Wages Authori ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ700AP
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act dated 6 October 1965.2. The relevant facts are that respondent 2, who was working as supervisor-in-charge at Yemmiganoor in Karnool district, was trapped on 20 December 1963, by the Anticorruption Bureau for having indulged in corruption. He was, therefore, placed under suspension with effect from 21 December 1963, pending enquiry by the Anti corruption Department. During the period of suspension respondent 2 was paid a substitutes allowance for a period of ten months. It was however, subsequently withheld.3. Respondent 2, therefore, filed a petition under the Payment of Wages Act before respondent 1, claiming subsitence allowance on the ground that it was unlawfully withheld. The petition was resisted by the petitioner before me. Respondent 1 however allowed the petition and directed the p...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›