Andhra Pradesh Court February 1969 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.
Nannepuneni Seetharamaiah and ors. Vs. Nannepuneni Ramakrishnaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970AP407
1. This appeal preferred by defendants is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Khan Original Suit No. 6 of 1962 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for partition and possession of his 1/5 share in Items 1 to 4 , 6 and 7 of plaint 'A' schedule and Item 18 of plaint 'B' schedule.2. The defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiff are the sons of one Narayana, the 4th defendant is their mother and the 5th defendant is their sister. According to the plaintiff, he and the defendants 1 to 3 were members of a Hindu undivided joint family and therefore he is entitled to partition and separate possession of his share in the joint family properties. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending inter alia that there was a prior partition where under there was allotment of shares to each of the sharers and therefore the plaintiff is precluded form seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of his share. The Subordinate Judge held that there was no prior part...
Sattaru Narayanaappalanaidu and ors. Vs. Tadela Latchanna
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1969
Reported in: AIR1971AP174
1. The undivided father of appellants 3 to 5 in the Second Appeal executed a promissory note dated 3-3-1956 for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- agreeing to pay interest at 18% per annum. Subsequently he made certain payments. On 29-11-1958 he executed a promissory note for Rs. 1,489/- being the amount due under the prior promissory note after giving credit to the payment. A suit was filed against the father as defendant-1 and his sons as defendants 2 to 4 and others for the recovery of the amount due under that promissory note which was marked as Ex. A-1 in the case. The defendants contended inter alia that they were agriculturists and entitled to the benefit of the scaling down of the debt under the Madras Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act of 1938 (Act IV of 1938) (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) The Trial Court holding that they were so entitled, scaled down the amount due under the promissory note and gave a decree for Rs. 465-76 nap. with proportionate costs and dismissed the rest of the s...
N. Raja Pullaiah Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-1969
Reported in: [1969]73ITR224(AP); [1969]24STC90(AP)
Kumarayya, J. 1. The common point for determination in all these writ petitions is whether the assessment made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on the best judgment basis smacks of arbitrariness so that the assessment orders may be quashed.2. It would appear that in all these cases provisional assessments were made for the year 1962-63 and the assessment amounts were also paid. At the time of final assessment, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, on a perusal of the account books submitted before him, came to the conclusion that they were not in order and could not be safely acted upon. He gave his reasons therefor which, according to the respondents, are cogent and valid. The account books being thus rejected, the only course left open to the taxing authority was to make assessment to the best of his judgment. Even this had to rest on some relevant dependable data and could not, in law, be arbitrary. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed the turnover on the basis of consumption...
Dawood Khan Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-1969
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ611AP
Chinnappa Reddi, J.1. The petitioner the proprietor of Dawood Watch Company, Hyderabad. Respondent 2, an employee of his shop, filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the presiding officer of the labour court, Hyderabad, for payment of wages from 12 March 1963 to 12 May 1965, and for payment of gratuity. The petitioner filed his objection stating that the presiding officer of the labour court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim and that the petition was also barred because of an earlier petition filed before the Payment of Wages Authority which had been dismissed by that authority. The application was adjourned from to time and was posted to 6 April 1967, for enquiry. Meanwhile the petitioner had gone abroad and his son who had been instructed by the petitioner to attend the labour court went to the labour court on 6 April 1967, but he was a few minutes late with the result that the presiding officer, labour court passed an order in...
G. Mahava Rao and ors. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Kurnool a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970AP419; 1970(2)AnWR1; 1969(1)APLJ40
ORDER1. In these Writ Petitions the validity of the notifications made under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act calling for applications for the grant of a temporary permit for various routes in the District of Kurnool is challenged. Though in some cases the notifications are different, the contentions urged against the validity of the notifications are identical and therefore, all the Writ Petitions were heard together. 2. It is sufficient, therefore, to set out the contentions in the main Writ Petition No. 4809 of 1968. The petitioner in that Writ Petition alleges that he is the holder of a stage carriage permit on the route Kurnool to Chagalamarri. The District of Kurnool is very much affected by drought conditions and the operators are already finding it difficult to find sufficient traffic for existing buses. While so, the Government issued instructions to the Regional Transport Officers to grant as many temporary permits as possible so that the revenues of the State may be augm...
Dharmiah and ors. Vs. the Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Government of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970AP236
ORDER1. The nine petitioners in W. P. No. 2235 of 1968 are temporary employees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Department, working as supervisors under various Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads in the region known as the Telangana Region of the State of Andhra Pradesh. All of them claim that they possess the qualification of residence mentioned in Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules. By an order dated 30-4-1968 the services of all the nine petitioners were terminated by the Chief Engineer Panchayat Raj Department. The petitioners allege that as many as forty-six supervisors belonging to the non-Telangana area in the employment of the Panchayat Raj Department are now working under Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads in the Telangana Area and they claim that so long as even one Supervisor belonging to the non-Telangana area, that is to say, not satisfying the requirement as to residence is working in the Telangana a...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›