Andhra Pradesh Court February 1976 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.
Karumanchi Veerangaiah Vs. Katta Mark and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1690
Madhusudan Rao, J.1. The complainant in C. C. No. 7/75 on the file of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate's Court, Bapatla is the appellant herein. The three accused who have been acquitted of a charge under Section 504, I.P.C. are the respondents. There is a land dispute between the complainant and the accused. The complainant instituted a suit against the three accused and some others in regard to the land. Pending disposal of the suit, he obtained an injunction restraining the accused and others from interfering with his possession of the land. He has also filed a complaint against the accused and others in the court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Bapatla alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 447, 427 and 149, I.P.C. He has further filed M. C. 7/74 under Section 144, Cr. P.C. in the court of the Executive Magistrate, Bapatla against the accused and others. The said M. C. 7/74 stood posted for enquiry on 16-1-1975. On this day the complainant, the ...
K. V. V. Satyanarayana Vs. Yenamandala Subba Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1977AP139
Sambasiva Rao, J.1. A question of topical importance relating to delivery of agricultural land in pursuance of an execution Court sale vis-a-vis the land reforms enactments, which have been recently passed by the Legislature of Andhra Pradesh, arises in this revision petition. Our learned brother A.V. Krishna Rao, J., placed this matter before a Division Bench in view of this importance.2. This is an auction-purchaser's revision petition. In execution of a decree in O.S. 279/71 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Razole, the decree-holder got attached agricultural land of Ac. 16-35 cents on 22nd of January, 1972. It is stated that the total holding of the judgment-debtor is Ac. 19-38 cents. The attached land was sold on 8-10-1973 and the same was confirmed by the Court on 25-9-1974. The auction-purchaser filed E.A. 1506/74 for delivery of the property; The judgment-debtor, who is the respondent, filed E.A. No. 377/75 seeking dismissal of the auction-purchaser's application for ...
Ambati Ramaswamy Chetty and Co. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC416(AP)
S. Obul Reddi, C.J.1. In these two revisions the dispute is regarding the tax liability on inter-State sale turnover of gingelly seeds, in one case amounting to Rs. 3,77,262.94 and in the other Rs. 4,15,610.51. Though these two cases relate to two different assessees and to two different assessment years, in view of the identical question arising in both the matters, the Appellate Tribunal disposed of the two appeals by a common order.2. Mr. Dasaratharama Reddi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the fact that in the bills or invoices it is mentioned that the sale price is inclusive of sales tax does not by itself establish that the assessees have collected sales tax, thus attracting their liability to pay the sales tax collected.3. The facts briefly stated are these : The two petitioners are registered dealers at Rajampet in Andhra Pradesh. They sold gingelly seeds in the course of inter-State trade during the assessment years in question. In...
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderbad Vs. Gadamsetty Vuda ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ420
Muktadar, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the accused who was charged under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for having adulterated the Chilly Powder.2. It is not necessary to state the facts in this case. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that P.W. 1 who is stated to be the Food Inspector did not have the necessary qualifications as envisaged in Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the trial Court fell into error in acquitting the accused simply because P.W. 1 did not have the necessary qualification to be a Food Inspector, because when once the court has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the qualifications of the Food Inspector are not material because the prosecution was launched on the basis of the Public Analyst's report which states that the sample that was sent to him was ...
Purohit Lakshmanchandji Vs. Vetcha Venkata Sree Ramachandra Murty
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-1976
Reported in: AIR1976AP428
1. The respondent herein filed a suit against the appellant O.S. No. 1000/71, District Munsif's Court. Rajamundry, for eviction and recovery of possession of a building at Rajamundry. His case was that the defendant was his tenant and that plaintiff issued a notice on 24-9-1971 asking the defendant to quit the premises on or before 31-10-1971. As the building was constructed after 16-7-1957, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act will not apply. The defendant contended that the building was constructed before 1957 and hence the proper remedy of the plaintiff was to file an eviction petition under Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and the suit was not maintainable. Even though the plaintiff had issued the notice to quit, he had accepted the rent from the date on 3-11-1971 and 3-12-1971 and subsequently. In these circumstances the said acceptance operated as waiver of the notice to quit.2. The learned District M...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›