Andhra Pradesh Court November 1971 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.
Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-1971
Reported in: [1973]90ITR47(AP)
Sriramulu, J. 1. Lands in Moosapet village belonging to Rashid Shapoor Chenai were acquired by the Government, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, for synthetic drugs project. Compensation awarded for those lands by the Special Deputy Collector was received by Rashid Shapoor Chenai. Later, land in Qutbullapur village belonging to him were also acquired by the Government for H.M.T. Units I and II. Awards in respect of these lands, which were required for lands at Rs. 4,29,360.68. Rashid Shapoor Chenai died on November 4, 1963, and the above compensation was received by the legal heirs of Rashid Shapoor Chenai. Estate duty assessment in respect of the properties passing on the death of Rashid Shapoor Chenai was made by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty on March 29, 1966. The values of these lands for the purpose of computing the estate duty in respect of the properties that passed on the death of Rashid Shapoor Chenai were taken at the respective figures of compensati...
Mrs. Freny Rashid Chenai Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1971
Reported in: [1973]90ITR31(AP)
Sriramulu, J.1. Two parcels of land measuring 22 acres 24 guntas, and 8 acres 23 guntas, situated in Moosapet village, belonging to one Rashid Shapoor Chenai, were, during his lifetime, acquired for the synthetic drugs project by the Andhra Pradesh Government by notifications dated June 19, 1961, and January 18, 1962, issued under the Land Acquisition Act. Awards fixing compensation for those lands were made by the Special Deputy Collector on March 31, 1963. Compensation was received by Rashid Shapoor Chenai during his lifetime. Later, two more parcels of land measuring 131 acres 10 guntas, and 224 acres 24 guntas situated at Qutbillapur in Medchal Taluk, were acquired by the Andhra Pradesh Government for Hindustan Machine Tools, Units I and II, by notifications dated November 1, 1963, and February 1, 1964, issued by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. Possession of those lands was taken by the Government on December 4, 1963, and between 13th and 15th March, 1964, respective...
Bonagiri Yellalu Vs. Nagulvaram Chenchu Subbaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972AP221
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. The respondent herein filed an application under Sections 10(1)(c), 13(1) and 20 of the Provincial Insolvency Act alleging inter alia that he is a debtor and is indebted to the persons mentioned in Schedule A. He has property mentioned in Schedule B. He being unable to discharge the debts, he wanted himself to be adjudicated as an insolvent.2. The petition was resisted by the 1st respondent therein. His main contention was that the debts contracted were bogus and the creditors were mostly the petitioner's relatives. He asserted that the petitioner was in a position to pay the debts of the creditors. He asserted that the petitioner was in a position to pay the debts of the creditors. He sold some of the property and therefore he had cash also.3. The learned Subordinate Judge after making a proper enquiry held that the petitioner is in a position to discharge the debts and as a result dismissed the application.4. Aggrieved by that order of the learned Subordinate J...
Kethmal Parekh Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR101(AP)
Parthasarathi, J. 1. The petitioner and his father carried on business as partners under the name and style of ' Kethmal Parekh & Co.' The firm commenced its business on April 16, 1961, and ceased to do business with effect from 13th November, 1963. The Income-tax Officer made an order of assessment under which the firm became liable to pay tax for two successive years at Rs. 2,265 and Rs. 13,000. The firm was treated as an unregistered one and assessment was made on that basis. The petitioner's father died in 1964, It is averred by the petitioner that the deceased left no property. He also states that he could not pay arrears of tax because of the heavy loss sustained by the firm. It would appear that there was a levy of penalty under Section 221 to the tune of Rs. 1,750 and Rs. 9,000 for the two years in respect of which the default has occurred.2. On March 8, 1967, the Income-tax Officer, Kothagudem, the second respondent herein, forwarded certificate to the Tax Recovery Officer und...
C. Rama Mohanarao Vs. G. Venkataramaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972AP269
ORDER1. The point for consideration in ;this civil revision petition relates to costs.2. The petitioner as plaintiff filed O. S. No. 46 of 1970 in the Lower Court to recover a sum of Rs. 18,504/- on the foot of a mortgage. Issues were framed and the suit was posed for trial. After some adjournments it came up before the Court on 8th April, 1971. On that day both sides reported not ready and sought an adjournment. While granting the adjournment to 17th June, 1971 the Court directed that 'both sides to Loss costs irrespective of the result of the suit'. It s this direction about costs that is sought to be revised in the revision petition.3. It is argued that while acceding to the request of the parties and granting an adjournment of the suit, the Court can award costs of the adjournment alone and it has no jurisdiction t issue a direction as to the costs in the suit at that stage. This contention seems to be well founded. Order 17, Rule (1), C. P. C. empowers the Court to adjourn the hea...
Polisetti Sri Lakshmamma Vs. Alapati Rajarao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972AP201
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Guntur, allowing E. a. 854/68, in O. S. 56/66.2. That is a petition filed by the 1st respondent in the Court below for sending for a sum of Rs. 8,925.95 from O. S. 124/67 on the file of the same court to the credit of O. S. 56/66.3. The materials facts of the case are not in dispute. The 1st respondent in the revision petition filed O. S. 56/66 in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Guntur for recovery of money due to him on a promissory note from the 2nd respondent. At that time the judgment-debtor had no sons, but a son was born to him after the filing of the suit. Pending the suit and before the judgment, the 1st respondent got a house belonging to the 2nd respondent attached. The suit was later decreed. In execution of the decree the 1st respondent got the house property sold on 5-12-1966. The petitioner before me filed another suit O. S. 124/67, against the 2nd respondent on the file of the s...
Legisetty Ramaiah and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1071
ORDERChinnappa Reddy, J.1. On 22-1-1970 the petitioners were granted a licence to carry on business in foodgrains under the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealer's licensing order. On 27-6-1970 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance cell Anantapur inspected the Rice-mill of the petitioner and seized a quantity of 714 quintals of rice which was found in the premises of the mill. The District Revenue Officer, Kurnool issued a notice under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act to the petitioner to show cause why the quantity of 714 quintals of rice should not be confiscated. The allegations in the notice were that the petitioners had carried on business in paddy and rice from 2-1-1970 to 21-1-1970 without a valid licence and that the petitioners had also contravened the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement, Levy and Restriction on sale order by selling certain quantity of rice without delivering the quantity required to be delivered to the agent under the procurement, Levy and Restric...
Tamma Venkata Pardhasaradhi Vs. Tamma Ramachandra Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1972AP223
Sambasiva Rao, J.1. The appellant filed before the lower Court a petition under Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. c. and Section 47, C. P. C. for setting aside a sale. The husband of the fourth respondent and father of respondent 5 to 15 obtained a decree on the foot of a mortgage in O. S. No. 32 of 1964 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court Guntur. The father of the appellant is judgment-debtor No. 1. The appellant is judgment-debtor No. 2 and his brother is judgment-debtor No. 3. The father and brother are respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal. There was a sale of the mortgaged property on 17-7-1968. Alleging that the sale was vitiated by several illegalities and irregularities like absence of notice, fraud, etc., and that the sale caused substantial loss to him the appellant filed the petition for setting aside the sale.2. The petition was filed on 14-8-1968. The Court's office took an objection that neither security was furnished nor the decretal amount was deposited and the decretal amo...
Kadiyala Venkatasubbaiah and ors. Vs. Sarupuri Narayanamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1972AP341
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. 1. This appeal is from the judgment of our learned brother Parthasarathi, J. given in Appeal No. 283 of 1966 on 20th March, 1970, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal.2. The material facts are that the appellant-plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of possession of A to C schedule properties and for mesne profits, past as well as future, alleging inter alia that the suit properties originally belonged to the plaintiff and his undivided brothers Nagayya, Venkayya and Raghavayya. The eldest brother Nagayya died long ago leaving his widow Raghavamma and a minor daughter Venkatasubbamma. The plaintiff and his two minor brothers maintained these ladies. They also performed the marriage of Venkatasubbamma with the 1st defendant. As Raghavamma wanted some arrangement to be made in her favour for maintenance, it was agreed that Raghavamma and her daughter Venkatasubbamma should enjoy the income from A and B Schedule lands and reside in the thatched house on...
Ravoof and Co. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-1971
Reported in: [1973]30STC428(AP)
1. These petitions are by the same assessee raising a common question relating to the assessment of turnover regarding purchases and sales of raw hides and skins, for which exemption was claimed during the three assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67.2. The assessee is a firm, M/s. Ravoof & Co., carrying on business at Srikakulam in raw hides and skins, bones and horns. The assessee-firm had also a tannery at Vizianagaram where the raw hides and skins are tanned and exported. In the returns of the firm for the three assessment years, on turnovers of Rs. 2,99,152.93 for the year 1964-65, Rs. 3,36,029.00 for the year 1965-66 and Rs. 7,45,313.12 for the year 1966-67, exemption was claimed on the ground that, they are not the last dealers in the State. Under entry 9 to Schedule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), hides and skins are taxable at the purchase point by the tanner and in all other cases at the point of purchase by the last dealer w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »