Andhra Pradesh Court November 1974 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.
Sarnapudi Appanna Vs. Rapanti Narsinga Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP304
A.V. Krishna Rao, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of execution proceedings in respect of a decree obtained more than 21 years ago. On 8-12-52 one Appala Naidu obtained a decree against one Raparthi Lakshmina-singarao for money. The present respondents are his legal representatives.2. The plaintiff (decree-holder) filed E. P. No. 44 of 1953 for sale and attachment of immovable properties of the judgment-debtor. Attachment and sale were ordered. On 24-3-1954 E. P. No. 44 of 1953 was dismissed, as the sale had to be stopped for want of bidders. In dismissing the application the executing court directed the attachment to continue for a period of six months. On 23-6-1954, the decree-holder filed again E. P. No. 162 of 1954, This E. P. also met with a similar fate. The sale had to be stopped for want of bidders and the E. P. was dismissed. Attachment was ordered to continue for six months. The decree in the meanwhile came to be transferred to the present appellant. He...
P. Vinayak Rao Vs. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise I.D.O.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-1974
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT67(AP)
Ramashandra Raja, J.1. This petition is for issue of a writ of certiorari of other appropriate writ or direction quashing the order dated 20.6.1972 of the Assistant Director of Central Excise, Hyderabad Division, Panjagutta. Under that order, the respondent confirmed the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Secunderabad, dated 17-4-1972 demanding duty on all the powerlooms installed by the petitioner and the firm M/s. P. Balaju Rao and Sons in the same premises treating them as having been installed by the same individual for the purpose of levy of excise duty. According to Notification, Central Excise, No 41/65 dated 28.2.1965 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, where not more than four powerlooms are installed, the excise duty payable is Rs. 25/-per year and where more than four powerlooms are installed, the excise duty payable is Rs. 75/- per year. The petitioner, in his individual capacity, is having four powerlooms. He is also a partner in M/s. P. Balaji Rao...
C.V. Purushotham Vs. Chinna Jeeyangar Mutt Tirupati
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP153
Alladi Kuppuswami, J.1. Thefirst defendant in O. S. No. 81 of 1965 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court Chittoor is the appellant. The plaintiff in the suit is a Mutt at Tirupathi represented by the present Matadhipathi. The suit was filed for a declaration that the permanent lease executed by the then Mathadhipathi on the 19th Chaitra of Vikari Corresponding to 1898 in favour of one, Govindachari and the subsequent alienation on 19-4-1940 in favour of C. V. Ramanujam, father of defendants 1 to 4 are void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff-mutt and for possession and mesne profits, past and future. According to the case of the plaintiff, the suit property belonged to the plaintiff mutt. One of the previous heads of the mutt executed a permanent lease in 1898 in favour of Govindachari. The grandson of the lessee sold the suit property in 1920 to one Ramaswamy Chatty who in turn sold (it) in 1927 to Katari Narasimhulu Reddv and another. Both of them sold (it...
K. Venkataratnam Vs. the District Revenue Officer, Guntur and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP359
S. Obul Reddi, C.J.1. The seizure of foodgrain stocks by the 1st respondent (District Revenue Officer) Guntur on 9-8-1974 from the business premises of the petitioner at Ponnur, Guntur District has led to the filing of the writ petition.2. The petitioner is a holder of two licences under the Andhra Pradesh Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Licensing Order') and has been doing business in foodgrains at Ponnur, Guntur District. The seizure of the foodgrains of different varieties was made on the ground that the petitioner had violated Clause 7-A of the Licensing Order inasmuch as there was no stock book kept in the business premises or his house. The report of the Inspector of Police Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies, Guntur (2nd respondent), to the 1st respondent was that the petitioner admitted before him that such a stock book was not maintained. The petitioner denies having made any such admission. It is his case that he has been maintaining a re...
Kasireddy Papaiah (Died) and ors. Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP269
ORDERChinnappa Reddy, J.1. The petitioners own small extents of land altogether of the extent of 3 acres and 17 cents in Reddi-palli Village, Bheemunipatnam Taluk, Visakhapatnam District. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of providing house sites for Harijans was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 24-9-1970. The notification itself bore the date 15-5-1970. By the same notification the power under Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked and the enquiry contemplated by Section 5A was dispensed with. Thereafter, the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved by the Government in G. O. Rt. No 2283 Education (S.W.) Department dated 22-12-1970 and was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 25-2-1971. No steps were, however, taken to take possession of the lands. On 16-9-1971 the petitioners filed the present application for the issue of a writ to Quash the notification dated ...
Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Vs. Nawab Zulfiquar Jah Bahadur and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP187
Madhusudan Rao, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of injunction pendente lite passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE cases. City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I. A. 41/73 in O. S. 8/72. The appellant is the first respondent in the Interlocutory Application and the first defendant in the suit. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 are the petitioners before the lower Court and they are the defendants 5, 6 and 9 in the suit. The other respondents 4 to 6 are the three plaintiffs who instituted the Suit O. S. 8/72. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to in this judgment by their positions in the suit. 2. The facts which led up to this appeal are as follows: The late Nizam of Hyderabad nominated his grandson, the 1st defendant, before his death as successor-Ruler of the State of Hyderabad and sought the necessary recognition of the Government of India. A certificate of Recognition in favour of the 1st defendant as the Ruler of the State of Hyd...
In Re: Mandadi Narayanamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP267
ORDERRaghuvir, J.1. This is a petition under Section 115, C.P.C. to revise the order dated 25-9-1972 made in C. F. No. 2877/72 on the file of the District Munsif, Kandu-kur, directing the petitioner to present the Succession Certificate Application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act to the proper court.2. The 1st petitioner is a minor represented by her paternal uncle as next friend and guardian and petitioners 2 and 3 are majors and sisters of the 1st petitioner. The learned District Munsif, relying on Rule 13-A of the rules framed under the Indian Succession Act, held that unless the guardian representing the minor 1st petitioner obtains an order from a competent court under the Guardians and Wards Act, appointing him as a guardian the petition cannot be entertained.3. Shri M. B. Rama Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, assails the above order as not proper.4. Rule 13-A has been added in the year 1947, which is as follows:--'13-A. Where any person applies for ...
Palaparti Appanna and ors. Vs. Palaparti Konda and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1129
ORDERMadhusudan Rao, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Visakapatnam recommending the quashing of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narsipatnam in M. P. No. 91 of 1972 and M. P. No. 102/72.2. One P. Konda, who will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner, submitted a petition under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code against P. Appanna and four others, who will hereinafter be referred to as the respondents, before the Sub-divisional Magistrate Narsipatnam in July 1971 alleging that the respondents were interfering with the possession of his land situate in the village of Chandrayyapalem in Narasipatnam taluk and there was likelihood of breach of peace. The petition was registered as M. C. 11/71. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate forwarded the petition to the police for inquiry and report. After receipt of a report from the police, he issued a preliminary order under Section 112 Criminal Procedure Code on...
T. Kuppuswamy Vs. Meer Husafar HussaIn and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP212
S. Obul Reddi, C.J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, in O. P. No. 63 of 1971 refusing to grant leave to the appellant to file a suit against the respondents in forma pauperis. The ground on which the application was dismissed is that an undischarged insolvent has no locus standi to file a suit and that the official Receiver alone is the competent person to sue in view of Sections 28 and 59 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.2. The case of the appellant is that he moved the Official Receiver (2nd respondent) to file a suit on his behalf against the Ist respondent; but the Official Receiver had refused to move in the matter. He was, therefore, left with no other alternative but-to file the application for permission to sue the Ist respondent in forma pauperis.3. The defence of the Ist respondent is that the proposed action is barred under Order 33, Rule 5 (d-1).4. What Order 33, Rule 5 (d-1) lays down is:--'The Cou...
Ganugala Veerabhadra Rao Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP213
Raju, J.1. The appellant who is an Individual member of the Gudivada Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. hereinafter referred to as 'the Society', filed the writ petition to quash bye-law No. 16 of the Society and the election notification dated 8-9-1972 issued by the Election Officer to elect the Board of Directors (Managing Committee) of the Society as per the allocation of seats made by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Andhra Pradcsh (Respondent-No. 1), hereinafter referred to as 'the Registrar' between the Individual members and the delegates of the Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies in pursuance of the power given to him under the impugned bye-law No, 16. Out of a total number of nine directors of the Managing Committee, the Registrar allotted five directors to be elected by the delegates of the Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Societies and four directors to be elected by the Individual Members. The contention in the writ petition is that bye-law No. 16 authorising...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »