Andhra Pradesh Court April 1979 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.
Kolikipudi Atchamma and ors. Vs. Kolikipudi Keti and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-1979
Reported in: AIR1980AP66
ORDER1. This revision petition arise out of the suit O. S. No. 1148 of 1971 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Guntur. Defendants 1 to 5 are the petitioners. The plaintiff is the first respondent. Judgement was delivered in the suit by the learned District Munisif on 22nd October, 1975. The petitioners applied for a certified copy of the decree on 6-11- 1975. The copy of the decree was supplied on 28- 11 -1975, but the printed copies were not ready for a long time . Meanwhile, the first respondent began to take steps for execution of the decree. Since printed copies of the decree and judgement and field an appeal before the District Judge on 20th of September, 1977. The office took an objection that the appeal was time- barred. Therefore, an application I. A. 1998 of 1977 was field under section 5 of the Limitation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act , to condone the delay in presentation of the appeal. It was contended in the application that since the application fo...
Bhubaneswar Naik Santoshrai and Etc. Etc. Vs. the Special Tahsildar La ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-1979
Reported in: AIR1980AP139
Seetharam Reddy, J.1. This batch of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 3151/78, 4004/78, 2221/78, and 2274/78 wherein common questions of law do arise, has been directed to be posted before a Division Bench by our learned brother M. Ramachandra Raju, J. for the authoritative pronouncement of judgment, for the reasons that the decision in V. Purnachandra Rao v. State of A. P. (1977) 1 APLJ (HC) 132 BY Justice M. Ramachandra Raju himself, and A, Gangadhara Rao v. G. Gangarao, : AIR1968AP291 by Ekbote, J. (as he then was) require reconsideration in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this court. The main and important question that arises is whether a gift of land made in favour of daughter of sister towards 'Pasupu Kumkuma' as marriage provision requires to be conveyed by a registered document. Secondly, whether such lands the possession of the same given to the daughter or sister without any deed of conveyance being registered is liable to be excluded from the holding of...
Kollur Lakshmi Koteswararao Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1979
Reported in: AIR1979AP262
P.A. Chowdary, J.1. The Andhra Pradesh Act No. 1 of 1975 (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act) (hereinafter called as the State Act) is once again under attack 2. The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of one late Venkatappaiah who died on 20-7-78. The petitioner's claim which was accepted by the Primary Tribunal of Land Reforms. Gurazala in CC No. 868/PLD/75 dated 3-5-1977 was that his adoption to late Venkatappaih took place on 12-8-1956 and that he was entitled to be treated as a major son for the purposes of the aforesaid Act. On the basis of those allegations as accepted by the Primary Tribunal. the petitioner was allowed to keep one unit as a major son in a total extent or Ac. 64-46 cents belonging to late Venkatappaiah But the Appellate Tribunal reversed this view of the Primary Tribunal and held that the petitioner's alleged adoption should he ignored for the purposes of the Land Reforms Act. This the Tribunal has power to do under Section 7 of the aforesaid State Act Aga...
Shankerlal Gupta Vs. V. Jagadishwar Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1979
Reported in: AIR1980AP181
Seetharam Reddy, J. 1. The proposition posed by the Division Bench comprising A. V. Krishna Rao, and Mahusudan Rao, JJ. In this reference is, 'Is the authority in G. Eswaraiah v. Mahendrappa Khani 1969 (2) APLJ 66 shaken and is no longer good law by reason of the decision in Muralidhar v. State of U. P. : [1975]1SCR575 as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Srikanth Neemkar V. G. Yelloji Rao 1977 (1) APLJ 80?' 2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, a brief re 'sume' of the facts is necessary. The sole defendant in O. S. No. 88 of 1971 is the Appellant. The suit was filed for recovery of vacant possession by ejecting the defendant from the plaint schedule premises situated at Kattalmandi, Hyderabad, and also for damages for use and occupation of the said premises at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. The plaintiff purchased the suit property in the year 1961. The defendant executed an agreement of lease on 1-6-1961. Admittedly , the house property was built before 26th...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Estate of Late G. Venkatasubbaiah (Accou ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1979
Reported in: [1982]134ITR447(AP)
Ramanujulu Naidu, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act of 1953, at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, for the opinion of this court on the following questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the 'goodwill' of the firm has to be valued only with reference to trading profits and not with reference to both the manufacturing and trading profits as adopted by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in fixing the trading profits at 1/3rd of the total profits and the value of 'goodwill' at one year's purchase of average profits as against three years adopted by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty ' 2. The facts giving rise to the above reference as set out in the statement of case drawn up by the Appellate Tribunal m...
indo-national Limited and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1979
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT334(AP)
Ramanujulu Naidu, J.1. As the scope or ambit of Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter called 'the Act', as amended by the Central Excises and Salt (Amendment) Act, 1973, which came into force on 1-10-1975, requires determination in these Writ Petitions, the same were heard together.2. The material averments in each of the Writ Petitions may be briefly stated.3. In W.P. No. 5948 of 1975, the petitioner is a limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing 'dry cell batteries' at its factory at Nellore, known as 'Nippo'. The petitioner follows a uniform pattern for the selling and marketing of the dry cell batteries manufactured at its' factory at A. Pradesh. The petitioner does not have any sole selling agents and sells the batteries to wholesale dealers in different parts of the country for ultimate distribution to consumers. The authorised wholesale dealers, to whom the petitioner sell dry cell batteries, are not the agents of the petitioner-company ...
Gandlury Pedda Veera Reddy and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1451
Gangadhara Rao, J.1. The question for our consideration in this petition is whether the High Court, by virtue of the powers conferred upon it, under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, can transfer a case, that was transferred by a Court of Session to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 228(1) Cr. P.C. to a court of a Magistrate of the First Class.2. The facts giving rise to this question are as follows; Originally accused 1 to 11 were committed to take trial in Sessions Case No. 75/77 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 I.P.C. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after preliminary hearing discharged all the accused for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and transferred the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddapah, for trying the other offences. That case is now numbered as C. C. No. 1/78. A petition was filed by the accused under Section 408 Cr. P.C. before the Sessions Judge,...
Sri Bramaramba Chennamalleswara Swami Temple, Isukapdili Vs. theta Nar ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1979
Reported in: AIR1979AP297
Gangadhara Rao, J. 1. This case was referred by Muktadar, J. to a Division Bench on the ground that the question raised in the case is of importance. 2. The Assistant Commissioner Bapatla, filed a report O. A. No. 31/70 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada, under S. 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act (Act No. XVII) of 1966 (hereinafter called 'the Act') stating that one Kesana Narasimhulu and forty other persons had encroached upon Survey Nos. 58/1 and 38/2 of Isukapalli village belonging to Sri Bramaraml Chennamalleswaraswamy Temple Isukapalli and constructed houses there and hence they should be evicted. It a stated that in a compromise between the Archakas of the temple which was a proved by the Commissioner this la fell to the share of the temple. It was originally in the possession of the Archakas and in the year 1941 one of Archakas leased the lands to one M.Subrahmanyam for a period of ten years for...
K. Vamana Rao Vs. the District Social Welfare Officer (Land Acquisitio ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1979
Reported in: AIR1979AP264
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The first point raised in this writ petition, challenging a notification issued under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, is that the notification has been issued by the Collector in the name of the Government which he cannot do and that. therefore, the notification itself is vitiated. This point has been negatived by us in our judgment delivered little while ago in W. P. No. 5707 of 1978, following a Bench decision of this Court in another matter. 2. The second question raised in this writ petition, however, appears to be substantial. The contention is that, in this case, the notification has not been approved even by the District Collector, but by the District Revenue Officer. This contention has been conceded in the counter; but, it is submitted that the same is good and valid for the reason, it is stated, that the powers of the District Collector are delegated to the District Revenue Officer by virtue of the notification contained in G.O.Ms. No 77, dated 22-...
C.V. Narayan Reddy Vs. Katanguru Raghava Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-1979
Reported in: AIR1980AP89
1 to 3. In this batch of four Civil Revision petitions common questions of law which are not only important but rather complex, do arise. This complexity is reinforced by the fact that varied views have been expressed in a catena of decisions by this Court, which apparently seemed to be conflicting and one is likely to be led into a labyrinth. No wonder our learned brother Jayachandra Reddy, J. despite the fact that he being a party to one of the Division Bench Judgments in M. Pocham V. Agent to the State Government, Adilabad, : AIR1978AP242 wherein in some respects the points raised not being quite dissimilar to the one raised herein, felt and very rightly so in our view that points raised in this batch may be decided by a Division Bench and therefore has chosen to refer the matter to a Division Bench. 4. The facts in brief are the revision petitioners who are holding agricultural lands, were required to declare their holdings for determination as to whether they have any surplus land...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »