Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
Rakurti Manikyam Vs. Medidi Satyanarayana
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1972AP367
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 58 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Amalapuram is the appellant in this Second appeal. He entered into a contract with the defendant for the sale of 64 bags of paddy at the rate of Rs. 34.25 per bag. The agreement was oral. It was also agreed that Re. 1/- should be paid towards transportation charges. In pursuance of the agreement the plaintiff delivered the paddy to the defendant. The defendant requested time for payment and subsequently failed to pay the price of the paddy. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for recovery of the price of the paddy at the contract rate. The defendant raised several pleas with which we are not concerned now. He also pleaded that the contract was illegal and opposed to public policy as it was contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Paddy Maximum Price Control Order of 1965 and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to enforce the contract and recover the money. The trial Court held that the contract was tr...
Punam Chand Hastimal Co. and ors. Vs. Sugavasi Venkataswamy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1972AP282
1. Defendant No. 5, representing the D-1 firm, as concurrently found by the Courts below, took a handloan of Rs. 4,000/- from the plaintiff on 27-3-1962 promising to repay it within two days. He could not keep the promise and executed on 29-3-1962 Ex. A-4 in the form of a letter promising to pay the amount with interest at 9 %. This has all the trappings of a promissory note but was left unstamped. On 6-4-1962 payment of Rs. 2,500/- was made towards the debt and the same was endorsed on the letter. The endorsement is Ex. A-5. The defendants, however, did not pay the amount when demanded and the plaintiff consequently filed the suit on 6-4-1965. The suit is to recover the debt incurred on 27-3-1962 and is not rested on Ex. A-4. Though the defendants raised very many pleas like that the signature on Ex. A-4 was not that of D-5 etc., the Courts below rejected all those defences and passed a decree against the D-1 firm and its partners, defendants 2 and 4 to 6. The third defendant was exon...
Azamkhan Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-1971
Reported in: 1973CriLJ508
ORDERA.D.V. Reddy, J.1. This petition is by the accused in C.C. No. 95 of 1968 on the file of the 1st class Magistrate Tandur against his conviction under Section 431. I.P.C. which has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hyderabad, in appeal.2. The case of the prosecution was that in Section Nos. 21 and 22 known as Ashanna and Ramanna fields situate at Kotalpur village belonging to the accused there is a Government cart track connecting the villages of Kothalpur Damarcherla. Tandur, Navandgi and Mailwar being used by the villagers for more than 40 years. that the accused intentionally blocked the cart track ten months Prior to 1.3.68 by fencing it with sticks and had also ploughed it and raised crops and hence the charge.3. The accused had pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of their case of whom P. Ws. 1 to 4 speak of the running of the cart track and the accused putting up mud wall and thorn bushes across the passa...
Babballapati Kameswararao and anr. Vs. Kavuri Vesudevarao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-1971
Reported in: AIR1972AP189
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. This appeal is preferred (referred?) by K. Ramachandrarao, J., as the learned Judge thought that the question which arises for consideration in the appeal is of considerable importance and is also likely to arises frequently. The question involves the interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, hereinafter called 'the Act'.2. The facts are very brief and are not in dispute. The property in question belonged to one K. Mahalakshmamma, wife of Ramakrishnayya. The plaintiff is the son of Janakiramaiah, the eldest brother of the said Ramakrishanayya. Mahalakshmamma died issueless. The plaintiff claims to be entitled to her properties. The 1st defendant is the paternal uncle's son of Mahalakshmamma. The 2nd defendant is the brother-in-law of the 1st defendant. They have no manner of right in the suit properties. The suit was therefore originally laid for declaration of plaintiff's title and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from int...
G. Ethirajulu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-11-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR16(AP)
1. At the instance of the assessee the following question of law has been referred to this court, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share income of the minor son from M/s. Ranganatha Silk House is liable to be included in the assessment of the father, i.e., the assessee, under Section 64(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The material facts leading to this reference may be stated :3. For the assessment year 1962-63 the assessee, G. Ethirajulu, was assessed to tax in the status of individual, on a total income of Rs, 56,669. Subsequent to the completion of the assessment, the Income-tax Officer came to know that the assessee's minor son, who received from the assessee assets worth Rs. 12,000 invested the same in M/s. Ranganatha Silk House and was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The income that fell to the share of the minor in M/s. Rangan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›