Andhra Pradesh Court April 1975 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.
Sajja Jaganmohan Rao Vs. Uppalapati Babu Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1975
Reported in: AIR1975AP278
Madhava Reddy, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition and the two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals came UP before the Full Bench on reference by our learned brother Venkatarama Sastry. J. as he was of the view that 'there is a clear and apparent conflict between the two Bench decisions reported in Sri Raia Vatsavayi Venkata Survanaravana Jaeapathi Raiu Bahadur v. The Official Receiver, East Godavari, : AIR1965AP451 and Manne Venkata Narayudu v. Thammineedi Subbarao. : AIR1973AP113 in regard to the rights of the attaching decree-holders in respect of the attachments effected prior to and after the adjudication.'2. The 1st respondent in the Civil Revision Petition obtained a decree in O. S. 5/71 on the file of the Subordinate Judge. Vijayawada against one Subbarapu Jagan Mohan Rao, the petitioner herein and one Subbarapu Ponniah, the 2nd respondent Who is the father of the petitioner and filed E. P. 158/71 on 7-9-1971 on the file of the said Court for execution of the decree against both the judgme...
Ch. Atchaiah Vs. Income-tax Officer, 'B' Ward
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1975
Reported in: [1979]116ITR675(AP)
Kuppuswami, J.1. The petitioner in these two writ petitions and one Kondal Reddy purchased under a sale deed dated October 20, 1962, an extent of 454.11 acres in Manmole Village, Sangareddy Taluk, Medak Dist., from Sri Ikramuddin and Smt. Azizunnisa Begum for a sum of Rs. 75,000. Even prior to the sale deed, by a notification dated October 10, 1961, the property had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for M/s. Bharat Heavy Electrical Project. The purchasers, therefore, claimed the compensation amount. By an award dated February 4, 1964, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation including solatium at Rs. 1,38,794.12. This amount was received by the purchasers on December 4, 1964 (not on February 4, 1964, as stated in the petition) and was shared equally by the purchasers. On a reference to the court of the district judge in O.P. No. 6/65 the district judge by his judgment dated August 3, 1967, enhanced the compensation according to the petitioner to Rs. 3,95,026, but acco...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Venkata Narasimha Rao and Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR28(AP)
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. At the instance of the revenue the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred to us the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Messrs. Venkata Narasimha Rao & Co., Tenali, and Messrs. Raja Fertilisers can he treated as two separate firms and distinct assessable entities ?'2. The facts are these, Messrs. Venkata Narasimha Rao & Co, is a firm formed in 1956 with two partners, Mallela Venkata Narasimha Rao and Visveswara Rao, each having a half share. The business of the firm is in chemical fertilisers and oil-cake manures. Messrs. Raja Fertilisers is a firm formed in 1958 with the very two partners each having a half share as in the other firm. The business of Raja Fertilisers is in chemical fertilisers only.3. In the assessment year 1966-67 the Income-tax Officer, Tenali, took the view that Messrs. Venkata Narasimha Rao and Company and Messrs. Raja Fertilisers were but one firm and not two ...
The Advocate General (A.P.) Vs. Rachapudi Subba Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ746
ORDERA. Sambasiva Rao, Actg. C.J.1. We start consideration of the case with a brief statement of the events that have caused the filing of the contempt case. The respondent (contemner) filed O. S. No. 101/73 in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayawada against five defendants for declaration of his title and for injunction in respect of a building. The 1st defendant in that suit, in his turn, filed O. S. No. 275/72 in the same court against the respondent for possession of the same building and for recovery of damages for occupation and user. The 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayaweda, heard the two suits together and by a common judgment dated 3lst of October, 1974 dismissed the respondent's suit and decreed the other one against him, both with costs. The decree-holder filed an execution petition for execution of the decree in his favour and the respondent filed an application for stay of that execution. They wore pending enquiry.2. On 25th of December. 1974 the respondent issue...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Estate of Late V. Ramaiah Sreshti
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR195(AP)
Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. A saying goes 'the manner of giving shows the character of the giver more than the gift itself'. To this if we add that keeping something back by the donor makes it no gift, for there is no grace in the benefit that sticks to the fingers, then the rigour of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act becomes understandable. It is the scope of this provision that falls for our consideration in the question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our decision, which is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the properties gifted to the wife, daughter and foster-daughter was liable to be included in the principal value of the estate passing under Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act ?'2. The essential facts necessary for deciding the question may briefly be stated. One Sri V. Ramaiah Sreshti, who died on June 6, 1965, made a gift of 21 acres of casuarina tope and 5 acres of wet land to his wife. The deceased likewise gifte...
Boya Lakshmanna Vs. Boyachinna Narasappa and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ127
ORDERMadhusudan Rao, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of committal passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate. Pattikonda in P.R.C. No. 6 of 1974 on the file of his court. The petitioner is the sole accused who has been committed to : he Court of Session, Kumool for taking his trial in regard to offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 I. P.C. along with the four accused in P.R.C. 5 of 1974 who were also committed to the Court of Session, Kurnool to take their trial for offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149, I. P.C.2. The facts which led up to this petition are as follows:3. Crime No. 70 of 1974 was registered by the S.I. of police, Gonegandla against the petitioner and four others in regard to the death of one Hussainappa and the same was investigated. During the investigation the petitioner pleaded alibi. The Inspector of Police, C. B. C. I. D. investigated into the plea and held the same to be fals...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Religiou ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1975
Reported in: [1977]108ITR229(AP)
Chinnappa Repdy, J.1. Late Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, Nizam of Hyderabad, by a deed dated September 14, 1950, created a trust known as 'Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust'. He settled securitiesof the value of Rs. 40 lakhs for carrying out the objects set out in the deed of trust. During the lifetime of the settlor the trustees were directed merely to accumulate the income from the trust fund (after meeting the expenses relating to the administration of the fund) and add the same to the corpus of the trust fund. On and after the death of the settlor the trustees were to hold the accumulated corpus of the trust fund upon trust to spend the income, in such shares and proportions and in such manner as the trustees deemed fit in their absolute discretion, for any one or more of certain specified religious and charitable objects. Two out of the four specified purposes required the application of the income outside the taxable territories and the other two purposes required the app...
Srinivasa Kandasari Sugars, Narasimhunipet Vs. Government of Andhra Pr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-1975
Reported in: AIR1976AP93
Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1. This Writ Petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction declaring the sale of the petition-schedule properties by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, i.e., the 2nd respondent, under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 in favour of the 4th Respondent, as unconstitutional, illegal and void, and the same came up for hearing before one of us (Sambasiva Rao, J., as he then was). During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner questioned the constitutional validity of the Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and as the same has to be heard by a Division Bench, the writ petition was directed to be posted before a Bench and accordingly it has come up before us. 2. The essential facts for appreciating the contentions on behalf of the petitioner, may briefly be stated. The writ petition schedule properties consisting of ...
Maddukuri Venkatarao and ors. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-1975
Reported in: AIR1975AP315
Ramachandra Rao, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, common questions as to the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are raised.2. The Act was passed on 31-7-1972 and received the assent of the President of India on 1-1-1973 and came into force from 1-1-1975 according to the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the Andhra Pradesh Extraordinary Gazette dated 18-12-1974. The Act was included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India by the Thirty Fourth Constitution Amendment Act, 1974. Earlier, with a view to prevent alienations of agricultural lands in anticipation of the ceiling law, the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienationl Ordinance, was promulgated on 2-5-1972, in and by which all alienations made from that date, have been declared null and void. The Ordinance was subsequ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Kailasa Devi and Smt. Rukmini Bai
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-1975
Reported in: [1976]105ITR479(AP)
Ramachandra Rao, J. 1. In compliance with the directions of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act of 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question in R.C. No. 53/1973 for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made on Smt. Kailasa Devi, under Section 143(3) read with Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1959-60, is legal and valid ?' 2. In R.C. No. 54/1973, the question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made on Smt. Rukmini Bai, under Section 143(3) read with Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1959-60, was illegal by reason of the fact that the notice under Section 147 although issued prior to 31st March, 1964, was served after the 31st March, 1964?'3. In R.C. No. 53/1973, the facts are as follows:The notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafte...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »