Andhra Pradesh Court June 1977 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.
V. Rajeswara Rao Vs. Karna Ademma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-1977
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas140(AP)
Alladi Kuppuswami, J.1. On the third of October, 1970, at 11-30 a.m., there was a collision between the bus APN 3429 and tractor APN 5585 on the road between Kanigiri and Kandukuru at a place between the villages Dubagunta and Kollagunta. One Ramireddi who was travelling in the bus died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident and another person byname Lakshmaiah was injured. Ramireddi's legal representatives--his widow and minor son--filed O.P. No. 66 of 1971 under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 20,000. Another legal representative of the deceased, Ramireddi, the mother, was added as respondent No. 6 to the petition. Lakshmaiah, the injured, filed O.P. No. 72 of 1971 claiming compensation of Rs. 30,000. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in both the petitions are the same. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the driver and owner of the bus whereas respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the driver and owner of the tractor. The 5th respondent is the Madras M...
Board of Trustees of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust Vs. Commercial Tax O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-1977
Reported in: [1979]43STC36(AP)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The same question arises for determination in each of these matters. The petitioner in each of these writ petitions is the Board of Trustees of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The main question which arises for determination in these cases is whether the Board of Trustees can be said to be a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The sales tax authorities have held that the Board of Trustees is a dealer and, on that footing, proceeded to assess the Board of Trustees to sales tax for the different assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75. The sales tax authorities have assessed and proposed to assess the Board of Trustees to sales tax in respect of several commodities in which, according to those authorities, the Board of Trustees have been dealing from time to time. The commodities on which the sales tax has been assessed or proposed to be assessed are as follows :(a) supply of w...
Board of Trustees of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust Vs. Commercial Tax O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(AP)200
B. J. Divan, C.J. - The same question arises fir determination in each of these matters. The petitioner in each of these writ petitions is the Board of Trustees of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The main question which arises for determination in these cases is whether the Board of Trustees can be said to be a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Sales-tax authorities have held that the Board of Trustees is a dealer and, on that footing, proceeded to assess the Board of Trustees to Sales-tax for the different assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75. The sales-tax authorities have assessed or proposed to assessee the Board of Trustees to sales-tax in respect of several commodities in which, according to those authorities, the Board of Trustees have been dealing from time to time. The commodities on which the sales-tax has been assessed or proposed to be assessed are as follows :(a) supply of wate...
G. Venkatesham Vs. the General Manager,
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-1977
Reported in: AIR1978AP285
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This appeal has been filed against an award made by the learned Addl. Chief judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad acting as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. By his award, the Tribunal has granted to the claimant compensation of Rs. 10,000/-2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under. The claimant's wife who was 21 years old died in an accident which was caused by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 15-1-1972 in the outskirts of the City of Hyderabad. The claimant-the husband of the deceased made a claim for Rs. 1,00,000/- under S. 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1964 against the Corporation. The Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs. 10,000/- Having been aggrieved by that award, the claimant has filed this appeal.3. By the impugned award the Corporation was also aggrieved. Therefore, the Corporation filed in this Court C. M. A. No. 31/75. It was dismissed by Mr. Justice Madhusudan Rao on 27-2-1976. It has been held in that decision that the ...
N. Varalakshmi Vs. N.V. Hanumantha Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1977
Reported in: AIR1978AP6
Sheth, J.1. The petitioner - husband filed O. P. No. 47 of 1965 against the respondent - wife for judicial separation on the ground that the respondent wife had any reasonable cause deserted him. It was decided on 2nd Dec. 1966 and the decree for judicial separation was passed. Two years thereafter elapsed and on 9-12-1968 the present petition was filed by the petitioner husband for divorce. There was no resumption of cohabitation between the parties. The learned trial Judge allowed the petition and granted to the petitioner husband the decree for divorce. In this petition the respondent - wife filed an interlocutory application praying for maintenance under S. 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That claim made by the respondent - wife was in view of her conduct, rejected by the learned trial Judge. 2. It is that decree which is challenged by the respondent - wife in this appeal. Mr. Kulkarni, who appears for the wife, has contended that she has made attempts at resumption of cohab...
Mysore Agarbathi Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1977
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT196(AP)
Gangadhara Rao, J. 1. The interesting question I have to decide in this Writ Petition is whether handmade 'Agarbathis' are handicraft products to claim exemption from payment of Excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 'Agarbathis' is not a specified item in the Act. Duty was being paid on 'Agarbathis' under the residuary item 68 of the First Schedule of the Act. While so, under Rule 8 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Government of India exempted handicrafts with effect from 30.4.1975 under Notification No. 114/75 from payment of Central Excise Duty levied under item No. 68 of. the First Schedule to the Act.2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of 'Agarbathis' at Secunderebad. They are handmade. No power or machinery is used in their manufacture. On the ground that 'Agarbathis' is a handicraft he claimed exemption from payment of duty. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad informed him on 1.10.1975 that 'Agarbathis' are included in the list of item...
P. Sainath Reddy and ors. Vs. G. Narayana Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-1977
Reported in: AIR1977AP401
1. The appellants are the original decree-holders. They obtained a money decree against the judgment-debtors. Thereafter they filed execution petition No. 35 of 1971. In that petition attachment was levied on the property of the judgment-debtors. Judgment-debtors raised objection to that attachment and contended that the execution of the decree was barred by time. The executing Court upheld the contention raised by the judgment-debtor and dismissed the execution petition. 2. It is that order which is called in question by the decree-holders in this appeal. 3. It has been contended by Mr. Sri Krishna that the Court below was in error in holding that the execution was barred by time. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon Section 7 of the Limitation Act. In order to appreciate the contention which he has raised it is necessary to note two dates. The decree under Section was passed on 10-9-1959 and the execution petition was filed on 5-8-1971. These two dates sho...
Kunta Malla Reddy Vs. Soma Srinivas Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1977
Reported in: AIR1978AP289
1.This revision by the 1st defendant under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. is directed against an order dated 12th March 1976 in I. A. 1012/75 in O. S. 387/75 on the file of the 2nd Addl. Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act. 1940 (referred to hereinafter merely as the Act).2. At the very outset a doubt was entertained whether it is an appeal or a revision that has to be filed against the impugned order rejecting the application filed under S. 34 of Act.3. Section 34 of the Act deals with the power to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement. Section 39 of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie from the various orders enumerated therein passed under that Act. Under Cl. (5) of sub-sec (1) of the said S. 39 of the Act an appeal lies from the order granting stay or refusing to stay the legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement.4. The order impugned is one passed in an app...
P. Ranga Redy and ors. Vs. Golla Sambasivarao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-1977
Reported in: AIR1978AP97
1. The point that arises for determination is whether in view of S. 100A of the Civil P. C., a Letters Patent Appeal lies from the judgment of a single Judge of the High Court in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal from an order of remand made by the lower appellate Court while disposing of an appeal.FACTS:2. The respondents filed the suit O. S. No. 122/66 before the District Munsif, Giddalur for partition of a bus with all its accessories into sixteen shares and for allotment of three such shares to them or to apply the provisions of the Partnership Act and for an account of all realisations made by the 1st defendant. Various issues were framed but the trial of the suit was confined to the issue as regards the maintainability of the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the suit is not maintainable as the alleged partnership was opposed to public policy and offends the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and S. 23 of the Contract Act.3. Aggrieved by that decision, the respon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›