Andhra Pradesh Court July 1972 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hyderabad Deccan Liquor Syndicate
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: [1974]95ITR130(AP)
Sriramulu, J. 1. The following three questions of law have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment on the association was invalid ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was within its powers to rehear the entire appeal and decide all issues which did not form the subject-matter of the reference before the High Court without any direction from the High Court? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has the power under law to uphold the ex parte assessment on the basis of an alleged non-compliance by D. D. Italia when the Income-tax Officer making the ex parte assessment did-not refer to that default at all in the assessment order?' 2. The material facts, so far as they are relevant for answer...
K. Ch. Venkataratnam Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: [1974]95ITR277(AP)
Alladi Kuppuswami, J. 1. Certain questions were referred for decision under Section 26 of the Gift-tax Act by the Tribunal under the directions of the High Court. Sri Mangachari who appears for the assessee, stated that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the matter and would like to withdraw the reference.2. It is now settled by a number of decisions that this court may decide not to answer a reference if the party fails to appear or does not take any interest in the matter. We need refer only to the decision of this court in Arisetty Butchanna v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1962] 46 I.T.R. 703 (A.P.)., where it was held that the High Court is not bound to answer a reference under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, if the assessee, at whose instance the reference was made, does not appear at the hearing of the reference.3. The same principle has been applied to a case where the party appeared and stated that it was not interested in the reference being answered or made an ap...
Dugginallakshmana Rao Vs. Duggina Kakshmi Katamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973AP302
M. Krishna Rao, J. 1. A.S.No. 262 of 1969:- This appeal was filed by the plaintiff whose suit was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Eluru. He filed the suit O.S.No. 41 of 1966 on 11-10-1965 for recovery of possession of two sets of immovable properties viz., Items 1 to 6 and Items 7 to 19 of the plaint A- Schedule from the 1st defendant. Defendants 2 to 6 are settlees of the properties from the 1st defendant. 2. The dispute has arisen under the following circumstances:- There was one Duggina Ratnam, who died in 1905 leaving his widow Lakshmikanthamma the 1st defendant herein. She adopted one Raghunadha Rao on 16-6-1933 as per law and in an ante-adoption agreement entered into between Lakshmikanthamma and Raghunadharao's natural father, she was given 7 acres of her husband's property with absolute rights leaving the rest of the property i.e., about 21 acres to the adopted son. Raghunadharao died on 24-4-1949 long after he became a major. Thereupon Lakshmikanthamma adop...
The Public Prosecutor (A.P.) Vs. Chowdari Tejeswari Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ320
Kondiah, J.1. This proceeding which has been reported for orders gives rise to a short question of law relating to procedure, viz., whether or not tender of a notice under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to a convict-accused who is serving his sentence in Jail, if refused by him, amounts to valid and sufficient service.2. In order to appreciate the scope of the question, it is necessary to state briefly the material facts which save rise to the same : A-1 and A-2 in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1971 have been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Sessions Court. Visakhapatnam and have been serving their sentences in the Central Jail, Visakhapatnam and Central Jail. Rajahmundrv respectively. Criminal Revision Case No. 654/71 filed by the Public Prosecutor representing the State under Sections 435 and 439 Cr.P.C. against A-1 and A-2 for enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment for life passed against them, to death has been admitted by thi...
R. Rajamma Vs. Avula Saraswathamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1973AP132
1. This appeal by the 8th defendant who is the widow and legal representative of the third defendant, is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Nellore dated September, 13, 1968, by which the suit O. S. 3/1965 instituted by the respondents herein was decreed..2. That suit itself was instituted in forma pauperis for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property and for profits.3. The point raised in this appeal for determination is whether an order passed by a Court under sub-rule (1) of Rs. 92 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure confirming the sale of immovable property held in execution of a decree representatives of the judgment debtor who died subsequent to the date on which the sale was held and prior to the date of confirmation of sale were not brought on record notwithstanding the fact that the applications filed by the judgment-debtor under Rules 89 and 90 of Order 21, Civil P.C...
S.M. Abdul Haq Sahib and Brothers Vs. Madura South India Corporation P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973AP39
1. This Civil miscellaneous appeal and the two revision petitions can be conveniently disposed of under a common order as the parties are same and they arise out of identical set of circumstances.2. The first defendant on 30th of December, 1964, purchased A.P.K. 7263, a Bedford Lorry from the third defendant, who is a dealer. The plaintiff was the financier and defendants 2, 3, and 4 were the guarantors. The financial ultimately brought O.S.No. 10/68 to recover the amount not only from the borrower but also from the guarantors. The other defendants contested the suit but not the third defendant. On conducting the trial and hearing the arguments of the parties, who participated in the proceedings, the court below passed a decree on 30th November, 1968 against defendants 1 and 3 and exonerated defendants 2 and 4.3. The third defendant filed I.A.No. 1140/70 to condone the delay in his filing an application for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him. Along with it he filed an...
iqbal Singh Vs. A.V. Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973AP193
1. It is true, as pointed out by Mr. Jagannadha rao, that it is not every error of jurisdiction that calls for interference by this Court under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code but the fact remains that there are errors and errors. Here is a case where the court below restored a copy application, which was ' struck off ' for not depositing the stamp papers within the time allowed and yet declined to take into account the date of the original application for the purpose of computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal, which, when taken into account, would show that the appeal was preferred in time and when an application was filed under Section 5 of the limitation act it dismissed the same under an erroneous understanding of the scope of its jurisdiction. The reason given is that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay after having earlier held that sufficient cause was shown for restoring the copy application which was ' struck off '.2. Mr. M.. L. R...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hyderabad Stone Depot and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-1972
Reported in: [1977]109ITR686(AP)
Gopalrao Ekbote, C.J.1. This case has come to us on reference made by a Bench of this court on 28th July, 1971. The Bench noticed the conflict between Addepally Nageswara Rao and Brothers v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1971]79ITR306(AP) and R.C. No. 50 of 1966 dated February 19, 1970 [Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mandyala Govindu & Co. : [1971]82ITR926(AP) ] and R.C. Nos. 65 and 82 of 1968 dated February 10, 1971 [Khummaji Milapchand & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1973]91ITR333(AP) ]. In order to resolve this conflict the matter has been referred.2. Before November 1, 1957, the Hyderabad Stone Depot consisted of 16 partners. From November 1, 1957, however, under a deed of partnership executed on November 5, 1957, a new partnership consisting of 18 partners was constituted. One of the partners, viz., Subash Keswarkar, being a minor, was admitted to the benefits of partnership.3. For the assessment year 1959-60, the firm filed an application under Section 26A of the Income-tax...
M. Nageswara Rao Vs. S. Ramachandra Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-1972
Reported in: AIR1973AP86
Venkatrama Sastry, J.1. Defendant is the appellant in this L. P. A. Which is preferred against the judgment of our learned brother Ramachandra Rao, J., in Second Appeal No. 368 of 1970, wherein leave was granted.2. The facts giving rise to this litigation are stated below ; The respondent is the owner of house bearing No. 5/122 situated in the main road, 5th ward of Rajahmundry Municipality. The appellant defendant is the owner of the house bearing door No. 5/123 and it adjoins the plaintiff's house on the north. The terraced house of the defendant was constructed in about 1958. In 1959 when the defendant attempted to raise walls with a view to construct a first-floor on the said house, the plaintiff gave him a notice on 28-9-1959 raising an objection to the effect that the proposed construction would block the free flow of air and light through the only ventilators facing north to the house of the plaintiff, marked in red lines in the rough plan. According to the plaintiff's case the ...
Jaladu AmanThe Raghurama Arya Vs. Jaladu Navalaxmi Devi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973AP194
Obul Reddy, J.,1. The short question that arises in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is whether the security bond executed in the name of a particular presiding officer of the Court by the judgment-debtor can be enforced against him by way of execution proceedings without that bond being assigned by that officer in favour of the decree-holder.2. The facts leading to filing of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are these; the decree-holder filed an application under Order 21, Rules 64 and 66 Civil P. C. for sale of the properties offered as security in the bond dated 21-7-1962 executed by the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor resisted the application on the ground that as the bond has not been assigned by the particular presiding officer, in whose name it was executed in favour of the decree-holder, the application is not maintainable. The only remedy available, according to him, is to get the bond assigned and lay a separate suit on the strength of it.3. The Subordinate Judge held, that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »