Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Paramatmuni Hanumantha Rao Vs. Official Receiver, Guntur
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1968
Reported in: AIR1970AP38
1. These appeals arise out of proceedings under Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.2. One Parametmuni Seshachalam settled his lands and house in favour of his sister's son, Nimmaraju Seetaramachandrarao, by a registered deed dated 12-6-58. janakiramarao, the brother of the settle and another creditor of Seshachalam moved the Subordinate Judge, Ongole, in I. P. 21/58 for the adjudication of Seshachalam as an insolvent treating the settlement made by him in favour of Setaramachandrarao as an act of insolvency. Seshachalam was adjudged insolvent on 29-9-59. On 17-3-60. Paramatmuni Hanumantharao purchased from Seetharamachandrasrao the lands which the insolvent settled on him, for Rs. 600/- under a registered sale deed, Ex. A-1. On the same day, Seetharamachandrarao sold the house, which is the only other item of property that was settled on him by the insolvent, to Appala Parameswarudu under Ex. A-2. On 17-12-62, the Official Receiver, in whom the estate of Seshachalam vested cons...
Radhakrishna and Co. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC320(AP)
Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the validity of item 6 of Schedule III to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the State Act') is challenged on the grounds: (1) that it designates two stages of taxation in respect of groundnuts, which being oil-seeds are 'declared goods' within the meaning of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Central Act') and is therefore contrary to the provisions of Section 6 of the State Act ; (2) that the classification of dealers as millers and other dealers is discriminatory and unreasonable and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution ; and (3) that the levy of tax on turnover of groundnuts in that entry exceeds the maximum fixed under Section 15(a) of the Central Act. Inasmuch as in all these writ petitions a general question of law alone arises, it is unnecessary to set out the facts in each case, except in one, i.e., W.P. 362 of 1968, as typifying the poi...
Addepalli Surya Ramachandra Rao and Co. Vs. the State of Andhra Prades ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC133(AP)
Ramachandra Rao, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the validity of Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (6 of 1957) (hereinafter called the Act). As the challenge to the said section is mainly on legal grounds, it is sufficient, to refer to the facts of one typical case.2. The facts in Writ Petition No. 748 of 1967 are briefly as follows:-The petitioner is a firm and a dealer in paddy and rice. For the year 1964-65, the Commercial Tax Officer, Palakole, by an assessment order dated 30th November, 1965, assessed the petitioner on a net turnover of Rs. 21,19,609.14 p. and levied a tax of Rs. 5,299.20 p. at per cent. under Section 5-A of the Act, in addition to the tax at 3 per cent. on a turnover of Rs. 14,63,021.86 p. and 1 per cent. on a turnover of Rs. 6,56,647.16 p. The total tax levied was Rs. 55,756.33 p. and after deducting the same from the advance tax paid, the refund of the excess of Rs. 2,257.33 p. was directed by the assessing ...
Kesireddy Appala Swamy and ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisitio ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1970AP139
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. A bench of this Court consisting of one of us (Chief Justice) and kuppuswami, J., referred to a Full bench the question whether court-fee is payable under Section 48 of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Court Fees Act) on 15% of the commendation which has to be awarded as solatium under sub-section (2) of Sec. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Acquisition Act).2. This reference was occasioned by certain observations of our learned brother, Venkatesam, J., delivering the judgment of the Bench in Dodlal Malliah v. State of Andh Pra, : AIR1964AP216 , that court-fee should be payable not only on the excess market value, but also on the 15% thereon, following the Bench decision in Brahmanandam v. Secy. Of State, Ilr 53 Mad 48 = (AIR 1930 Mad 45 ), which held that where a person being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, wants...
Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Com ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC178(AP)
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. In both these petitions, the vires of Sub-section (6) of Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is challenged on the ground that as it discriminates assessees whose assessments are revised by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, from all other assessees who though similarly situated are either revised by the Board of Revenue or by officers above the assessing authority but below the Deputy Commissioner, it violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution, there being no rational basis or nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved.2. In W.P. No. 330 of 1967, the assessee is a limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing cotton yarn at its mills in Mahaboobnagar. For the assessment year 1964-65, the company was assessed on 15th June, 1965, by the Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad III, on a net turnover of Rs. 8,09,780.22, after exempting a ...
In Re: V.S. Metha and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1970AP234; 1970CriLJ797
A.D.V. Reddy, J. 1. The point that arises for consideration in these revisions is what exactly is the period of limitation prescribed in S. 106 of the Factories Act for launching of prosecutions for offences under the Act.2. In all these cases, the State, through the Assistant Inspector of Factories, had filed complaints in Criminal Courts for breach of certain provisions of the Act punishable under Section 92 of the said Act. Section 106 of the Factories Act reads as follows:-'No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless compliant thereof is made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector: Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an Inspector, compliant thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed'.3. In so far as the knowledge of the Inspector is concerned it is contended that in t...
Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma Vs. Mulkluri Murlidahar Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1970AP194
ORDER1. The 4th defendant in O. S. No. 305/1967 on the file of the Court of District Munsif of Narasaraopet in Guntur District seeks a transfer of the suit to the Court of District Munsif of Bodhan in Nizamabad District. The suit is laid by the plaintiff for a permanent injunction restraining the several defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the properties mentioned in the A, B, and C schedulers annexed to the plaint. A schedule properties are lands situated in Jakora village in Nizamabad District while B and C schedule properties are a house and house site situated in Mulakalur and Chimalamani in Guntur District. The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to all the properties as the heir of his adoptive father Kutumba Rao, as also under a will executed by the said Kutumba Rao. Defendants 1 to 4 are stated to be residents of Sri Nagar in Nizamabad District while defendants 5 and 6 are residents of Mulakalur in Guntur District. A single suit is laid in respect of ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›