Andhra Pradesh Court October 1970 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.
H. Ahmed and Co., Bombay Vs. the Kohinnor Glass Factory Ltd., Hyderaba ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-1970
Reported in: AIR1971AP401
Venkatreswara Rao, J.1. The only point that arises for determination in this appeal, which has come before this Bench on a reference made by one of us sitting alone inview of the importance of the question involved, is whether an order dated 5-8-1955 made by Tendolakr, J. sitting on the original side of the Bombay High Court in an application for execution filed by the decree-holder in suit No. 179 of 1943 dated 1-6-1955 would operate to serve as a reviour of the decree within the meaning of Art. 183 of the Indian Limitation Act,. 1908.2. A brief statement of the facts giving rise to the appeal is necessary to appreciate the contentions urged by the parties to this proceedings. The appellant obtained money decree against the respondent in Suit No. 1-61-1955, he made an application to that court for 'execution' as can be seen from the certified copy of the minutes of execution, market as Ex. 49 in the court below. Notice under O. 21, R. 22, Civil P. C. was ordered on this application to...
Bhagvatula Pullayya Vs. M. Anandam Chetti
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1970
Reported in: AIR1978AP66
ORDER1. The respondent is the landlord of premises bearing door No. 327 in Gandhi Road, Tirupathi. He filed a petition for eviction of his tenant, the petitioner herein. under the provisions of Sections 10 92) (I), 10 (2) (ii), 10 (3) (a) and 10 (3) (b) of Andhra Pradesh Act 15 of 1960. He claimed to be put in possession on the several grounds mentioned in those provisions. Every one of the grounds raised by the landlord was contested by the tenant, who, in addition, claimed that the petition for eviction was liable to be dismissed as no maintenance as he had not been given any notice able as he had not been given any notice to quit in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before filing of the petitioner for eviction. The Rent Controller held every one of the grounds on which the petition for eviction was based in favour of the landlord but nonetheless dismissed the petition as not maintainable on the ground that there was no prior notice to quit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tatavarthy Narayanamurthy (Decd.) and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1970
Reported in: [1972]83ITR58(AP)
Kuppuswami, J.1. An assessment order was passed on 29th August, 1949, by the Income-tax Officer, Masulipatam, for the assessment year 1949-50 whereby the assessee, a Hindu undivided family, consisting of Tatavarthi Narayanamurthy and his sons, was assessed on a total income of Rs. 48,413 and directed to pay a tax of Rs. 12,537.07. This order was confirmed on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vijayawada, by his order dated March 5, 1951 and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also dismissed the appeal preferred from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.2. Before completing the assessment, proceedings under Section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act were started against the assessee and as the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had deliberately suppressed true particulars of the income, he levied a penalty of Rs. 6,000 on the assessee with the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. This order was passed on the ...
Allied Exports and Imports, Gudur Nellore District Vs. State of Andhra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1970
Reported in: AIR1971AP218; [1971]28STC175(AP)
G.R. Ekbote, J.1. The petitioner firm is a registered dealer and deals in mica. For the year 1957-57 the firm was assessed to sales tax on a turnover of Rs 4.94.315-6. by an assessment order D/- 30-9-1958.2. On information the assessing authority after due notice assessed the dealer on an additional turnover of Rs. 1,50,000/- as escaped turnover by its order D/- 31-3-1963. 3. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner firm preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner. The appellate authority though that the escaped turnover is more than what has been found by the assessing authority . The appellate authority therefore by its order D/- 28-9-1964 remanded the case to the assessing authority with a direction to proceed on the lines suggested in the order.4. The firm further carried an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order D/ 9-3-1966 directed the remand of the case to the assessing officer after setting aside the order of the appellate authority .The asses...
P. Govinda Reddy and ors. Vs. Golla Obulamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1970
Reported in: AIR1971AP363
N. Kumarayya, C.J.1. These two second appeals have been referred to the Full Bench for they raise questions of allow of some importance involving inter alia the interpretation of the rivos to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act on which there is no authoritative pronouncement either of this Court or of the Supreme Court.2. Both the appeals arise out of the suits for recovery of amounts on foot of two simple mortgage deeds, one executed by Golla Chinna Reddy and the other by Jayaram Reddy in the year 1950 in favour of Potlapati Nagi Reddy, Chinna Reddy died leaving him surviving his widow as the only heir. Potlapati Nagi Reddy, the mortgagee so did not live long. He died in the year 1960 survived by his widow, four sons and two married daughters. His eldest sons Govinda Reddy thereafter brought the two suits, one against the widow of Chinna Reddy, on a last day of limitation. He did not at the time of the institution. make any of the others heirs of the mortgagee ass party to any of t...
Purell Venkatachalam Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-1970
Reported in: 1977(1)ELT212(AP)
Kondaiah, J.1. This application by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution is to quash the adjudication Order No. 193/67, dated 31.10.1967 passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Tanuku Circle in his C.O.R. No. 20/67, dated 31.10.1967 imposing a fine of Rs. 100/- for the contravention of Rule 151(c) read with Rule 32(1) of Central the Excise Rules, 1944,2. It is averred by the petitoner that the local Central Excise Officers having been prejudiced against him had issued a Show Cause Notice, dated 01.09.1967 pointing out the receipt of 1966-1967 tobacco under T.P. 3. dated 15.05.1957 issued for the transport of 1965-66 crop on 20.03.1967 for no fault of his. It was also stated that he received eleven packages of tobacco. Under T. P. 3 supplied by the Departmental authorities on 16.03.1967 for the transport of 1965-66 season tobacco on 20.03.1967 and as the officer did not visit the warehouse inspite of intimation of the packages were kept separately in the godown afte...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›