Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Manganti Suryanarayana Vs. the Board of Revenue, Government of Andhra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1975
Reported in: AIR1976AP150
Kondaiah, J.1. Pursuant to the direction of this court in Writ appeal No. 222/68 dated February 25, 1971, the Board of Revenue has submitted a statement of case under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899) (hereinafter called 'the Act') for our decision on the following question: 'Whether the petitioner (vendee) is entitled to refund the excess stamp duty paid on the deed dated 12-6-1962 registered as document No. 2014 of 1962 in the Sub Registrar's Office, Kaikalur under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act (Act II of 1899) or otherwiseIn order to appreciate the scope of the reference, it is not only profitable but necessary to state the facts that give rise to the question and which are not in dispute and lie in a short compass, Sri Jasti Venkataratnam and his sons had executed a document styled as 'sale deed' on June 12, 1962 in favour of Sri Manganti Suryanarayna, the petitioner herein, in respect of a land for a consideration of Rs.5,980/-. The vendee paid a sum of Rs. ...
Yeramati Ramakrishnaiah Vs. Vijapeyajula Venkateswarlu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1975
Reported in: AIR1976AP317
1. The principle question of law that has to be answered in this case is whether Art. 11 of the Limitation Act (1908) would apply to a suit brought to challenge an order dismissing a claim petition made to an attachment directed before judgment. Since the suit, out of which the present Second Appeal arises, was instituted in 1960, it is the Act of 1908 that is applicable to it.2. Now, I will refer to the parties as they were arrayed in the suit O.S. No. 275/60 in the District Munsif's Court at Kakinada. The defendant in the suit, filed O.S. No. 349/55 against one Venka Bhaskrarao for recovery of money and pending the suit he got attached some properties in the name of the said Bhaskararao in I.A. No. 26/56. The plaintiff then filed I.A. No. 908/56 to raise the order of attachment. His contention was that the property really belonged to him but stood in the name of Bhaskararao was made a party to the claim petition. It may also be mentioned that Bhaskararao had earlier executed a deed o...
Palyam Rangappa Vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of India and
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-1975
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT32(AP)
Muktadar, J.1. By his order dated 9-1-69, Respondent No. 3 imposed a penalty of Rs. 250/- on the petitioner and directed confiscation of 926 Kgs. of tobacco. He also levied duty on 1075 kgs. and odd of tobacco on the ground of irregularities by the petitioner who is a tobacco grower. In consequence of this order, Respondent No. 4 issued an order on 6-8-71 which is a demand notice for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,401.69P. on 6-12-71, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act under which a period of three months is provided for preferring an appeal against an appealable order, from the date of communication of the order. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was far beyond the period of limitation and consequently, Respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal on the ground that appeal was time barred. Against that order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 1st Respondent which was also dismissed. It is now well settled by the Supreme Court as ...
Achuta Yellamandaiah and ors. Vs. Kurakulakshmamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1975
Reported in: AIR1976AP238
Venkatrama Sastry, J.1. These two appeals arise out of an administration suit. A.S. 179/72 is preferred by plaintiffs 1 and 3 to 5. A.S. 752/72 is preferred by defendants 29 to 32.2. One Kuraka Subbarayudu died on 16-3-1968 leaving behind him defendants 1 and 2, his wives and defendants 5 to 9 his sons and daughters. He has left a large estate which is shown in A-schedule property which consists of immovable and B-schedule movable properties. Originally the suit was filed by five plaintiffs who re creditors of Subbarayudu. As the 2nd plaintiff died plaintiffs 6 to 12 were added as his legal representatives. The 1st plaintiff obtained a decree for Rs.6,000/- and odd and costs on 30-10-1970 under ex. A-1 against Subbarayulu and other defendants and his heirs. Similarly the 3rd plaintiff obtained a decree for Rs. 4,000/ and odd plus costs on 30-8-1968 under Ex. A-18. The 4th plaintiff also obtained similar decree for Rs. 10,223-76 on 30-6-1971 vide Ex. A-14. The 5th plaintiff lent a sum o...
Mandam Abdul Sattar Saheb Vs. H. Abdul Hakeem and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-1975
Reported in: AIR1976AP85
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Madanapalli, Chittoor District in I.A. No. 332/1973.2. That petition was filed under Order 33, Rule 9, C.P.C. for dispaupering plaintiffs 2 to 6 on the ground that they have got sufficient means to pay the court-fee. 3. Plaintiffs 2 to 6 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased who was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 69/71. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons while plaintiffs 4 to 6 are the daughters of the deceased-plaintiff. 4. The deceased-plaintiff was permitted to sue in forma pauperis. The 2nd plaintiff admitted that he has 75 cents of wet land and a mud house. It if admitted by the defendants that plaintiffs 3 to 6 are not having any properties. The 2nd defendant offered to purchase the 2nd plaintiffs mud house for Rs. 2,200 and the land for Rs. 2,200 if the 2nd plaintiff is prepared to sell them.5. Taking into consideration the 2nd defendant's offer, the learned Subordinat...
P. Venkateseshamma Vs. the State Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-1975
Reported in: AIR1976AP1
Madhava Reddy, J. 1. The maintainability of these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India during the period in which proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 and the declaration of the President of India under cl. (1) of Article 359 is in force and the validity of the amendments effected in the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971, by the two Amending Ordinances of 1975 arise for consideration in these writ petitions. Having regard to the general importance of these questions and the far reaching consequences of these amendments these petitions have been referred to a Full Bench. 2. The first of these writ petitions is for the release of an advocate of this Court, Sri P. Venkateswarlu, who was arrested and detailed under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to the 'Principal Act'. 3. Sri P. Venkateswarlu was arrested on the intervening night of 25/26th June, 1975 at 1-30 A.M. under Section 3(1)(a) of the Maintenance...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rasheed Ahmed
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-12-1975
Reported in: [1977]109ITR665(AP)
Sambasiva Rao, Actg. C.J.1. These are the petitions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 13th December, 1972, in I.T.A. No. 826/Hyd/1970-71 and 507, 508 and 509/Hyd/1972-73. They refer to the assessment years 1963-64, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69, respectively. There were delays in filing the returns for all these years. In the first year there was delay of 4 years 8 months, in the second 3 years 11 months, in the third 2 years 9 months and in the fourth one year 11 months. The assessee tried to explain the delay for the first year by saying that the matter had escaped his memory and that his income was share income from a firm and it took time to get the share particulars. He, however, made no attempt at all to give any explanation for the last three years. The Income-tax Officer imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(a) for all the four years for filing the returns very late in addition to char...
K. Ramachandra Naidu Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-1975
Reported in: AIR1976AP203
A. Sambasiva Rao, Ag. C.J. 1. This is a transport matter and relates to the inter-State route between Tirupati and Arkonam. There were two permits on this route for stage carriers. There were as many as 33 applications. Very many things happened after the applications were filed, as usually happens in transport matters. The applicant fought with particular tenacity for their permits as a consequence of which, the dispute went up and down several times. We need not, however, encumber our order with the minute details of that incessant travelling of this dispute. We will do well with starting at the stage where the petitioner and one Venkata Reddy were granted two permits by the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor, on 25-2-1966. In 1970 six of the applicants filed appeals before the State Transport Appellate Authority, which was constituted under Rule 189 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964. One of these appeals was preferred by the 3rd respondent herein under the amendme...
Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Vs. the State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ524
Punnayya, J.1. These two petitions are directed against the orders passed by the District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru before whom appeals were preferred under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') making over Criminal Appeals Nos. 65/1974 and 84/1974 from his file to the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Eluru.2. According to the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not competent to hear and dispose of the appeals under Section 6-C of the Act. He, therefore, requests this Court to retransfer the appeals to the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Eluru from the file of the Additional Sessions Judge.3. The question whether the Additional Sessions Judge is competent to hear and dispose, of the appeals under Section 6-C of the Act was decided by our learned brother Chinnappa Reddy, J. in L. Ramayya v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1972) 1 Andh WR 118 : 1972 Cri LJ 1071. The learned Judge held that whether the...
Andhra Handloom Weavers' Co-op. Society Vs. Labour Court and Ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1975
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ263AP
Venkatarama Sastry, J.1. The only point urged by Mr. Haranadha Rao in this writ petition is whether the domestic enquiry in this case was properly dispensed with or not.2. The 2nd respondent herein, who was a worker in the petitioner concern, was suspended from duty on 29th September, 1967, on account of some deficit stocks found on an inspection on 3rd September, 1967. They valued the stocks so missing at Rs. 2,84091 . He has also, it appears failed to account for the cash balance of Rs. 278,35. Thus, the total amount in deficit was Rs. 3,120.26, while he was in charge of the sales depot at Karimnagar as assistant manager at the time of the closure of the said depot. The petitioner-society framed charges and issued a show cause notice to the 2nd respondent on 15th October, 1967, as to why his services should not be terminated for misappropriating the aforesaid amounts. The 2nd respondent submitted an explanation on 28th October, 1967 (marked as exhibit M1) admitting the charges of mis...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »