Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: delimitation amendment act 2003 section 4 amendment of section 8 Sorted by: old Court: andhra pradesh Page 9 of about 10,403 results (0.209 seconds)

Feb 12 1958 (HC)

Haji Wali Mohamed Haji Moosa Saya Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1959AP364; [1959]37ITR538(AP)

..... officer thereof, a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may beincluded in a notice under sub-section (2) of section 30and the provisions of this act shall, so far as maybe, apply accordingly as if the notice were a noticeissued under that sub-section.56. where any business, profession or vocation carried on by ..... that if the return is not filed on or before the 25th august, 1951, the assessment will be completed under section 31 (4) of the hyderabad income-tax act.'on 25-8-1951 the assessee raised certain contentions as follows :'(a) the defunct business of messrs. haji walimahomed haji moosa saya was controlled and managed with full responsibility ..... commissioner of income-tax, hyderabad v. adilakshmi devamma, air 1955 hyd 225. in that case a similar question fell for determination, viz.'assuming that the hyderabad income-tax act is intra vires whether the income of the previous year, that is to say. the income of 1356 f. could be validly taxed in 1357 f.?'dealing with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1958 (HC)

Reliance Automobiles Vs. State of Andhra

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [1958]9STC295(AP)

..... of them.6. the first of the contentions relates to the validity of the rules framed under the andhra pradesh general sales tax act. the said act (vi of 1957) was enacted for the purpose of consolidating and amending the laws relating to the levy of a general tax on the sale or purchase of goods in the state of andhra pradesh. ..... sub-section (3) of section 1 provides that section 1 shall come into force at once and the rest of the act shall come into force on such date as ..... impose such reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within that state as may be required in the public interest : provided that no bill or amendment for the purposes of clause (b) shall be introduced or moved in the legislature of a state without the previous sanction of the president.' 8. the matters mentioned in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 1958 (HC)

Amritlal N. Shah Vs. Alla Annapurnamma

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1959AP9

..... the series of madras decisions referred to above. we are inclined to hold, in the light of the decisions referred to supra, that the subordinate judge acted rightly in allowing the amendment of the plaint and granting relief as to recovery of possession by reason of the expiry of the lease during the pendency of the suit without driving the ..... plaintiff to a separate suit.12. the next question that falls to be decided is whether the provisions of the rent control act apply to the lease ..... lease. the amendment application was ordered on 1-8-1952.2. the appellant herein contended that he was entitled to abatement of rent for stoppage of business and that he had also discharged the arrears of rent. he further pleaded that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the provisions of the act apply.3. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 1958 (HC)

Kotharaju Narayana Rao Vs. Tekumalla Ramachandra Rao

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1959AP370

..... presumption, it is proved by the evidence that there is no consideration for ex. a-l. the scope of the presumption under section 118 of the negotiable instruments act was explained by varadachariar j., in narasamma v. veerraju, air 1935 mad 765), and may be stated thus; the court is bound to start with the presumption ..... a-i is not a promissory note as it does not contain an unconditional undertaking to pay and therefore, no presumption of consideration under section 118 of the negotiable instruments act arises in its favour; (2) that even if section 118 applies, it is proved that, as a matter of fact, the promissory note is not supported by ..... held further that the non-examination of venkatachalam by the plaintiff was immaterial, as the defendant had to rebut the presumption under section 118 of the negotiable instruments act. the noncompletion of the sale was also in his view immaterial as neither the plaintiff nor venkatachalam were responsible for it. on these grounds, he decreed the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1958 (HC)

G.M. Chenna Basappa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1959AP368; [1958]34ITR576(AP)

..... us. a question of law can be said to arise out of an order of the appellate tribunal within the meaning of section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act. in other words, the order of the tribunal should disclose that point of law was raised before the tribunal. if such a question is not raised before, the tribunal, it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 1958 (HC)

K. Gopala Krishnayya and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1959AP292

..... pradesh and the state transport undertaking which was utilised for the purpose of initiation of the scheme was the one which come into being under the motor vehicles hyderabad amending act, 1956.such transport undertaking could not be regarded as the state transport undertaking for the andhra pradesh, for the reason that it was constituted for another area and ..... sanction.it is only when it wants a monopoly in any trade or business that a legislative sanction is needed. article 19(6) of the constitution as amended by the first amendment act of 1951 among other things provided that 'nothing in clause (g) of article 19 shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it ..... , they can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. two broad grounds are raised in support of these petitions (1) that the provisions of chapter iv-a (amending act 100 of 1956) are ultra vires the constitution; and (2) even if that chapter is intra vires, the scheme is vitiated by reason of the non-compliance with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 1958 (HC)

Ahmed Ali Khan Bahadur (Died) and anr. Vs. Banguluru Veeralla and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1959AP280

..... the relief sought for was on behalf of all the creditors of the nawab present and future. 14. the suit was instituted prior to the amendment of section 53 of the transfer of property act by act 20 of 1929 which made it mandatory that the suit filed for the purpose of avoiding a transfer under section 53 should be instituted on ..... it cannot therefore be defeated by any rule of practice which has no statutory basis.'it is not necessary to refer to the amendment to section 53 of the transfer of property act and of the impact of that amendment on the nature of a suit filed by defeated attaching creditor for the purpose of avoiding a transfer as being effected with ..... behalf of and for the benefit of the entire body of the creditors. prior to this amendment, there was a conflict of judicial opinion as to whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 1958 (HC)

Jamuna Bai and ors. Vs. Gampina Narayanamurthy and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1959AP108

..... 's expense and if the building is then in the occupation of a tenant, at his request.' the words 'in this act' were substituted by the amending act of 1951. a comparison of the provisions ot the rent control order and the act extracted above would show that while clause 7(a) of the madras house rent control order 1941 completely prohibited an increase ..... here is as to whether the agreement between the landlord and the tenant for an enhanced rent offended section 6 of the madras buildings (lease and rent) control act of 1946 or 1949 as amended in 1951.3. relying upon a decision of the madras high court of govinda raja chari, j., in a. moses pillai v. m. k. govindan, 1948-1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 1958 (HC)

Sri Rama Purchase and Sale Society Ltd. Vs. State of Madras (Now Andhr ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1959AP36

..... of the levy in regard to two periods alone -- the first period ending with 1-1-1948 on which date the amended section 2(h) of the madras general sales tax act (amended by the insertion of a new explanation by madras act xxv of 1947) came into effect and the period starting from 26-1-1950 and ending with 31-3-1950. 4 ..... period are concerned, on the ground that there was no transfer of property in the goods inside the state within the meaning of the unamended section 2(h) of the act and that therefore the transactions were not attracted by the charging section. the general pattern of every transaction is as follows: 6. the plaintiff's customers who are residents ..... government in the court below although it has not been seriously repeated before us. the trial court held that the suit was barred by time under section 18 of the act because it was filed beyond the period of six months limited thereby. its view is inconsistent with the decision of a divisional bench of this high court in santhanna .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 1958 (HC)

Sri Rama Purchase and Sale Society Limited Vs. State of Madras (Now An ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [1958]9STC761(AP)

..... the levy in regard to two periods alone - the first period ending with 1st january, 1948, on which date the amended section 2(h) of the madras general sales tax act (amended by the insertion of a new explanation by madras act xxv of 1947) came into effect and the period starting from 26th january, 1950, and ending with 31st march, 1950 ..... are concerned, on the ground that there was no transfer of property in the goods inside the state within the meaning of the unamended section 2(h) of the act and that therefore the transactions were not attracted by the changing section. the general pattern of every transaction is as follows :the plaintiff's customers who are residents outside ..... in the court below although it has not been seriously repeated before us. the trial court held that the suit was barred by time under section 18 of the act because it was filed beyond the period of six months limited thereby. its view is inconsistent with the decision of the divisional bench of this high court in .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //