Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
Owen Vs. Pook (inspector of Taxes).
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR247(AP)
3, 4 Feb.; 26 Mar., 1969LORD GUEST J. - My Lords, Dr. Owen is a general medical practitioner in practice at Fishguard. He also holds two part-time appointments with the South Wales Hospital Management Committee as obstetrician and anaesthetist at a hospital in Haverfrdwest some 15 miles from Fishguard. Under the terms and conditions of these appointments he was on 'stand-by duty' as obstetrician, one weekend a month and as anaesthetist on Monday and Friday nights and one weekend a month. At such times he was required to be accessible by telephone, apart from being on call at all times for obstetric 'flying squad' duties in any part of Pembrokeshire. He had no other duties at the hospital, all were concerned with emergency cases. The flying squad duties were very rare. On receipt of a telephone call from the hospital he gives instructions to the hospital staff. He usually sets out immediately by car to the hospital. He may advise treatment by telephone and await a further report. Someti...
Bayya Pitchaiah Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-1969
Reported in: [1969]24STC390(AP)
Venkatesam, J.1. This case has been referred to al Full Bench by Basi Reddy, J., and one of us (Sambasiva Rao, J.,) on the ground that the view of the Division Bench in State of Andhra Prades v. Varre Pothuraju, (1963) 2 Andh LT 201 = (1964) 15 STC 222 as to the scope and meaning of Section 14 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, vis--vis the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the said Act has cut down the amplitude of the powers of the revisional authority, although there are no restictive words in Section 20 of that Act, and that the decision therefore, requires re-consideration.2. The relevant for a determination of the question referred to us are as follows:--The petitioner is an individual carrying on business in butter and ghee, and registered as a dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (n0. 6 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). For the assessment year 1956-57, he reported a gross turnover of Rs. 1, 58,514-7-9 and a net turnove...
Andhra Provincial Potteries Ltd., Tadepalli and ors. Vs. Registrar of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1969
Reported in: [1969]39CompCas1000(AP); 1970CriLJ313
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. The question before us is whether, under S. 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 (I of 1956), (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the holding of an annual general meeting of a company and laying before it the balance sheet and the profit and loss account are prerequisities for a prosecution under Section 220 (S). 2. The High Court of Bombay in Emperor v. Pioneer Clay and Industrial Works, AIR 1948 Bom 357, and earlier, the Madras High Court in Lakshmana v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Mad 341 had held under Sec. 134 and the analogous provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (hereinafter called the 'old Companies Act) corresponding to Section 22o of the Act that the omission to file with the Registrar the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account of a company is not a contravention of those provisions in as much as either no general meeting was held at which the balance-sheet was laid, or no general meeting was due to be held. After the decision of the Supreme Cou...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Godavarthi Kasiviswanadham
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC1(AP)
Sambasiva Rao, J.1. Godavarthi Venkateswarlu was a dealer in pulses. The Sales-tax Officers inspected his business premises on 4-3-1958. They detected in the course of that inspection, certain discrepancies in his accounts. Venkateswarlu, however, died on 17-5-1958. His son, Kasiviswanatham, the respondent in the Tax Revision Case, as the legal representative of his deceased father, who was the dealer, submitted to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tenali, the return for the year 1957-58 (i.e. from 1-4-1957 to 31-3-1958) for the purpose of sales tax assessment. He also produced all the accounts maintained by the deceased dealer. The net turnover reported in the return was Rs. 32,324-13-0. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, however, did not accept this turnover, as the accounts maintained were found to be not correct. Therefore by his proceedings dated 15-12-1958, the Officer assessed the deceased dealer to the best of his judgment assessment. Later, in his proceedings dated 18-12-1961...
Kasturi Lakshmibayamma Vs. Sabnivis Venkoba Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-1969
Reported in: AIR1970AP440
Parthasarathi, J. 1. The main question for decision in this appeal relates to a plea of limitation , which along with other defences, was successfully urged in the trial Court to non-suit the plaintiff. The plaintiff, and the 12th defendant who tool no part in the proceeding, are sisters and their father is the Ist defendant in this action. Their mother died in 1932. At a time when both the daughters were still minors, the Ist defendant conveyed on 11-7-1938 under six separate deeds, the property belonging to them to the defendants 4 to 9. He purported to act on their behalf as guardian though by that time both of them were married. The plaintiff, who is younger in age, was however still living with her father, the consummation of the marriage apparently not having taken place, by the date of the sales. They are impugned on the ground that they were not justified by necessity. Nor were they effected for the benefit of the minor or for proper price. The father is charged with having act...
Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, H.E.H. the Nizam of Hyderabad Vs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR133(AP)
Sambasiva Rao, J.1. Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, H.E.H. the Seventh Nizam of Hyderabad (hereinafter called the petitioner), was assessed to income-tax for the four assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57,1957-58, and 1958-59. All the four assessments were completed by March 28, 1961. The Income-tax Officer, Circle No. 3, Hyderabad, who is the respondent, however, issued notices dated March 13, 1964 (received by the petitioner on February 16, 1964 (sic)) to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calling upon him to file supplemental returns of income, on the alleged ground that some income chargeable to tax in the four above-mentioned assessment years had escaped assessment. These proceedings are said to have been instituted by him under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. These writ petitions were thereupon filed for the issue of writs of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent from taking any proceedings instituted by him under Section 147(a) of the I...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›