Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
immadi Ramachandram Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1832
Madhusudhan Rao, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the petitioner's petition to the extent of recalling P.W. 1 and cross-examining him only on the question of supply of copy of the report of the Public Analyst before filing the complaint. He, directed the recalling of P.W. 1 in the light of this Court's observation in Public Prosecutor v. Sreeramulu 1975 (2) APLJ (HC) 145. Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules reads as follows:It shall be the duty of the Food Inspector... (j) to send by registered post, a copy of the report received in Form III from the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken within ten days of the receipt of the said report. However, in case the sample conforms to the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder then the person may be informed of the same and report need not be sent.2. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read as follows:(2) After the institution of a prosecution...
P. Hemalatha Vs. the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1976AP375
Sambasiva Rao, J.1. I agree with the conclusion drawn by my brothers Kuppuswami and Lakshmaiah, JJ., in their separate judgments, namely that the petition be dismissed.2. The meaning and scope of Section 124-A, I.P.C. are well known and well established. After the two opinions of my learned brothers, it is unnecessary for me to elaborate the legal position. A mere criticism or denunciation of the Government established by law is not objectionable. Citizens are certainly entitled to express their grievances and to endeavour to get them redressed through lawful means. However, if these attempts or exhortations bring the established Government or tend to bring it into hatred and contempt, they certainly come within the ambit of sedition as stated in Sec. 124-A, I.P.C. The test that should be applied is to find out whether any article or articles intend to have the effect of creating feelings of hostility towards Government and to excite disaffection. I am not referring to the case law on ...
The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Patel and Pate ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977AP172
1. This appeal by the defendants is directed against the decree and judgment made in O. S. No. 317 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Fifth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 28th November 1972.2. The suit giving rise to the above appeal was filed seeking the recovery of Rs. 9,850 being the costs of material supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant with interest at 9% P. A. and for costs of the suit.3. The case of the plaintiff is that the Superintending Engineer (Operation) City Circle. A. P. State Electricity Board Hyderabad called for quotations from the plaintiff for supply of flexible copper earthing bonds and the plaintiff gave a quotation No. OP/CC/15/66, dated 13-12-1966, for the supply of the material from their ready stock at Calcutta stating therein that the validity of the quotation was for thirty days. The Superintending Engineer placed an order for 100 kgs. of Copper Earthing Board at the rate of Rs. 188-25 Ps. per K. G. through local purchase orde...
G. Ramachander Vs. the Collector, Excise, Hyderabad and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1977AP346
Obul Reddi, C.J. 1. The Civil Miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of the Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dismissing an application filed by a debtor under section 6, 7 and 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. The learned Judge, in so dismissing the petition followed the decision of a single Judge of this Court in M. Somaiah v. P. Padma Bai (1969-2 Andh WR 274).2. The question that falls for consideration in this civil miscellaneous appeal is whether a debtor is precluded from filing an application for adjudication if there is only a single creditor. The appellants is working in Sagar Sanitary Works, Secunderabad. He was the highest bidder at an auction held for the issue of licence for a today shop at Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. He bid at that auction at the instance of one Eswaraiah. Eswaraiah was managing the business along with the appellants. A relation of his financed the business. According to him, he never looked into the accounts, with the ...
T.V. Sarma Vs. Achuthuni Nagakoteswararao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ19
ORDERMadhusudan Rao, J.1. This Miscellaneous Petition under Section 439(2), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused persons in P.R.C. No. 1 of 1975 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate's Court, Chirala.2. The Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala committed the accused persons to take their trial for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 120B read with 302, 201 and 466 I.P.C. under an order dated 10-2-1976. All the accused persons were on bail before they were taken into custody in pursuance to the committal order. They preferred urgent applications for bail under Crl.M.P. Nos. 35 and 37 of 1976 before the Sessions Judge. Ongole on 10-2-1976 itself. On each of these two applications, the learned Sessions Judge passed the following order.P.P. is given notice. Made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, for disposal.The applications having thus been sent to the Additional Sessions Judge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge pass...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Degaon Gangareddy G. Ramkish ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR93(AP)
Kondaiah, J.1. At the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in exercise of its powers under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act has drawn up a consolidated statement of the case and submitted the same to this court for its opinion on the following question of law:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sub-partnerships are entitled to the benefits of registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65 ?'2. In order to appreciate the scope of the question, it is necessary to state the facts and circumstances, admitted or found by the Tribunal that gave rise to the question. The consolidated statement of the case is in respect of seven sub-partnerships, whose main partner is a partner in the main partnership firm known as 'Nizamabad Group Sendhi Contractors'. As the Tribunal adopted the facts in I.T.A'. No. 1031 of 1969-70 as typical of the facts in all ...
Venkatesh Confectionary Works Vs. Appellate Collectral of Central Exci ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-1976
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT59(AP)
Kondaiah, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash the Order of the Government of India dated 23.11.73 rejecting its revision and confirming the orders of the Appellate Collector Excise, Madras, dismissing the appeal preferred by it against the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad Division II, as barred by limitation. Mr. Jogayya Sarma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the appeal involves a question relating to the fundamental rights of the petitioner, and in the circumstances, the appellate authority should have construed the provisions relating to condonation of delay in preferring an appeal liberally condoned the delay and entertained the appeal on merits. In support of his contention, he has cited S. Syed Mohd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs (A.I.R. 1960 Kerala 386). This claim of the petitioner is resisted by the Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government contending infer alia that the appellate authority is not competent to condone ...
N. Venkat Ramani and ors. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1060
Alladi Kuppuswami J. (For himself and on behalf of A.V. Krishna Rao, J.) 1. The first petitioner in W.P. No. 5527/75 was arrested on 25-6-1975 and detained under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (referred to in the judgment as MISA). Similarly the other petitioners in this petition and the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 5676 and 6125 of 1975 were also arrested on different dates which are not relevant for the purpose of this writ petition. The respondent, namely, the State of Andhra Pradesh, revoked the orders of detention on 16-8-1975 and passed fresh detention orders On the same day. The petitioners and several other persons similarly placed as the petitioners filed a batch of writ petitions, W.P. 4679 of 1975 etc. questioning the validity of the orders of detention dated 16-8-1975. These petitions were heard by Kondaiah and Madhavarao, JJ. By their judgment dated 9-10-1975 (reported in 1976-1 Andh WR 194) they held that the orders of detention are invalid and qua...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Pelleti Sridevamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-1976
Reported in: [1976]105ITR887(AP)
S. Obul Reddy, C.J.1. The question referred to us is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital gain of Rs. 58,000 was assessable in the hands of the assessee in terms of Section 64(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' The assessee is an individual having money-lending business and mica mining business. She submitted a return for the assessment year 1966-67 and claimed that an amount of Rs. 58,000 arising out of sale of house standing in the name of her minor son, Suryanarayana Reddi, is not taxable as a capital gain. In the financial year 1956-57, the assessee made a cash gift of Rs. 90,000 to her minor son. This amount was utilised for purchasing a house property and it was used by the assessee for the purpose of her business. On July 5, 1965, the said property was sold by her to Tirupathi Devastanam for Rs. 1,48,000. The Income-tax Officer assessed the capital gain of Rs. 58,000 derived from the sale of the house in the hands of the assess...
Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, represented by Superintending ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-1976
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ54AP
Punnayya, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, Hyderabad in E.I. case No. 9 of 1972. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board who is the petitioner in the lower Court is the appellant herein.2. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation. Hyderabad respondent, demanded the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 646.80 towards employer's special contribution and a sum of Rs. 3,452.84 towards employees' contribution for the period from I. 10.1968 to 31-3-1971. But the appellant failed to deposit the same and hence the respondent-Corporation moved the District Collector, Karimnagar to recover these amounts under the Revenue Recovery Act as arrears of land revenue.3. The District Collector, therefore, issued a show-cause notice on 26-4-1972 to the appellant calling upon them to explain as to why the property of the appellant should be attached for the realisation of the said amounts. The appellant submitted an explanation stating that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »