Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978AP342
Gangadhara Rao, J.1. These two appeals are filed against the judgement of Punnayya, J. in AAO, Nos. 76 and 77 of 1975.2. The respondent filed the suit O. S. No.93/1957 for the partition of the plaint A Schedule properties into two equal shares and for separate possession of one such share for her, after setting aside the alienations made by her son, the 1st defendant, in favour of defendants 2 to 5. The suit was decreed on 29-7-1958 and the alienations were set aside. The 2nd defendant, an alienee, preferred the appeal A. S. No. 506/1969 in the High Court, but it was dismissed on 26-9-1963. Then he filed L.P.A. No. 104/1964. It was also dismissed on 30-10-1969 with some directions. The decree-holder filed E. P. No. 39/1973 on 23-4-1973 against the 2nd defendant for recovery of costs. She also filed E.P. No. 151/1973 for recovery of mesne profits.3. In E. P. No. 39/1973 the 2nd defendant has raised an objection that it was barred by limitation under Art. 136 of the Limitation Act. The l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978AP345
ORDER1. Decree holder is the petitioner. He obtained a decree for money against the respondent and filed E. P. No. 71/1972 for realising a sum of Rs. 9,722-40 ps. Meanwhile, the summer vacations intervened and the Courts reopened on 11-6-1973. On 14-6-1973 the judgement-debtor filed E. A. No. 43 of 1973 for recording part satisfaction to the extent of Rs. 8,603-95 Ps. According to him, on daughter in favour of the decree-holder for a sum of Rs. 5,500/- and further paid a sum of Rs. 3,103-95 p. in cash. Notice of the petition was given to the decree-holder who denied receiving any such payment or having purchased the car. He also pleaded that the judgement-debtor's application is barred by Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court below enquired into the same and upheld the judgement-debtor's plea that has paid a sum of Rs. 8,603-95 to the decree-holder, as alleged by him. It overruled the objection of the decree-holder relating to limitation relying upon S. 17 of the Limitatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1979(4)ELT307(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment of Gangadhara Rao, J., dismissing the Writ Petition.2. The petitioner-appellant manufactures, inter alia, electric fans. Two of the components, namely, stators and rotors, are not manufactured by the appellant but are purchased from others who manufacture them. The electric fans are subject to the levy of Central Excise duty, having been mentioned in Entry 33 of Schedule I to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Stators and rotors also were mentioned under the same Entry 33 until 1-3-1969. The Finance Act, 1969, however took them out of Entry 33 and placed them under Entry 30. It may be noticed that in November, 1971, the position was restored and the stators and rotors again came to be mentioned under Entry 33. The present dispute has arisen because of the said change in law.3. The Rules framed under Section 37 of the Act provide for, inter alia, levy, refund and exemption f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1979AP173
Chinnappa Reddy, J. 1. The Kanyaka Parameswari Varthaka Sangham. Ganapavaram is the appellant before us. This appeal under C1. 15 of the Letters Patent has its roots in a petition died by the Appellant, before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, under Section 77 of the Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act far a declaration that the pavaram in west Godavari District run by the appellant Accretion was not a charitable institution within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Ad. The petition under Section 77 was itself necessitated by the fact that the Assistant Commissioner of endowments had issued 4 notice to the appellant to register the Sathram as a Charitable institution under the provisions of Section 38 of the Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act. alleging that the building known as 'Sathram was constructed by the Appellant, Sangham, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, that the ownership of We building was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978AP420
ORDER1. The Collector, Bombay, by his letter No. LRB/MOF/REV/1/74, dated 20-9-1975 requested the Collector, Hyderabad, to collect a sum of Rs. 42,300/- as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner. The Collector, Hyderabad, initiated proceedings, by his letter No. D2/20449/75, for the collection of the amount and instructed the revenue officials to recover the amount from the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act. After receipt of this proceeding, the Spl. Revenue Inspector issued Distraint Order under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act 1984 and served it one the petitioner on 14-4-1977. It was stated in the Distraint Order that a sum of Rs. 42,300/- fell due from the petitioner towards toddy licence fees for the year 1973. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition alleging that he never took any licence for selling toddy from the Excise Authorities in Maharshtra, that the Collector, Hyderabad, was not entitled in law to invoke the proceedings of the Reven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978AP463
ORDER1. The lands in survey Nos. 46, 56, 57, 59, 60, 355-A, 722, 723, 849 and 8087 have been acquired by the Government. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to a 1/4th share in the lands and, therefore, she is entitled to 1/4th share of the amount of the compensation. She claims to have filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer. That was made prior to the award of the amount of compensation. She complains that despite her claim, the Land Acquisition Officer appears to have passed an award in favour of respondents 2, 3 and 6 only. From the counter it is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in regard to survey Nos. 46, 57, 59 and 60 only and in regard to the other items he referred the dispute regarding title under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute in regard to survey Nos. 46, 57, 59 and 60 should have also been referred to the Court under S. 30 of the Act. He alleges that the Land Acq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978AP433
ORDER1. The Far Eastern Steamship Company, also known as Fesco Lines, Vladivostok, carrying on business at Kakinada, through their agents M/s. D. S. Narayana & Company, Kakinada, the defendants in the suit O. S. No. 267 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, are the petitioners. The first plaintiff in the suit are Koika Trading Company Ltd , Osaka Japan and second and third plaintiffs are New India Assurance Company Limited, Bombay and Aspinwall and Company Limited, Cochin and Kakinada. The defendants area steamship company incorporated in U.S.S.R and carry on business as common carriers by Sea and carry for reward goods inter alia from ports of India to Japan. The defendants are the owners and/or charterers of the ship. 'M. V. Kolya Mygotin', hereinafter referred to as 'the ship' at all material times. The first plaintiffs are a Limited Company incorporated in Japan and carry on business as importers and exporters having their head office at Osaka, Japan....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1353
Muktadar, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the accused who was charged with commission of an offence punishable under Sections 16(1) and 7 read with Section 2(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case of the prosecution is that P. W. 1 the Food Inspector, Anakapalli saw the accused, who was a regular milk vendor, selling milk in the municipal area on 31-5-1976 at 7.30 a. m. He stopped the accused and after noticing that the buffalo milk was adulterated purchased 660 ml., after complying with all the formalities. He paid 66 paise to the accused for the milk purchased and obtained receipt for the same, which is Ex. P-1. The Food Inspector then divided the milk into three parts, poured the sample into three clean, dry and empty bottles, added 16 drops of formal in to each of the bottles, corked them and sealed them. He gave one bottle to the accused under acknowledgment, Ex. P-3 and sent another bottle to the Chemical Analyst, and kept. on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1979AP25
Chennakesav Reddy, J. 1. Varahalamma, the petitioner before us, obtained a preliminary decree in a suit brought on a mortgage against the respondents. She died an application under O. 34, R. 5, C. P. C. praying the Court to pass a final decree directing the sale of the mortgaged property for the realisation of the amount. The mortgage was executed by late Repeti Jaggamma and his sons, respondents 1 to 4. The mortgage schedule consisted of Ac. 4-76 cents of wet land in S.No.87 and Ac. 3-60 cents of wet land out of Ac. 9-28 cents Survey Nos. 226/2 and 226/4. The respondents who are the sans and daughters of mortgagee, Repeti Jaggamma opposed the petition contending that the debt was not binding on them and in any case the proceedings abated under S. 4 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance 25 of 1976. The learned District Munsif held that the respondents had taken the plea in the suit itself that the debt was not binding on them, that preliminary decree was passed holding all of them liable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1979]117ITR628(AP)
S. Obul Reddi, C.J.1. This petition under art. 226 of the Constitution is filed by the assessee, Lakshminarayan, questioning the validity of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, under Section 264 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are these : The petitioner filed his return in the status of an individual for the assessment year 1973-74 (accounting year ending November 5, 1972). He did not pay advance tax on the share income of his minor son who was also a partner along with him in the firm of Messrs. Lakshminarayari Kamal Kishore. As he did not pay advance tax on the share income of the minor sort, the ITO charged interest of Rs. 3,290 under Section 217(1A). That led to the petitioner preferring a revision before the CIT under Section 264 of the Act, challenging the levy of interest on the ground that there was no statutory obligation on his part to make an estimate of the income under Section 212(3A) so as to include the share income of...
Tag this Judgment!