Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1955AP142
Bhimasankaram, J.(1) These two appeals under the Letters Patent are against the Order of a single Judge of the Madras High Court declining to grant a temporary injunction against the respondents restraining them from taking possession of the lands in dispute pending the disposal of A. S. Nos. 1013 and 1015 of 1953.(2) The learned Judge took the view that, in the circumstances of these cases, no injunction could be asked for. Before we go into the question of law, it is desirable to state breifly the facts leading up to the present appeals.(3) A. S. Nos. 1013 and 1015 of 1953 are appeals against the common judgment in O. S. Nos 97 and 99 of 1952 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Elurn. The suits were instituted by the appellant in these appeals for a declaration of his right of occupancy in the lands in dispute in each of the suits. The appellant is the arechaka of three temples, Sri Venugopalaswamy Varu, Sri Sitharamaswamy Vary and Sri Kesavaswami Varu in the village of D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1956CriLJ1320
Srinivasachari, J.1. These are second appeals, on behalf of the three accused in a criminal case. The second appeal was competent under the Hyderabad Criminal P.C. The charge was laid against three persons of an offence under Section 342, Indian Penal Code corresponding to Section 409, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that there was a Local Unit established under the Commercial Corporation, Supply Department of the Hyderabad State in Chartana, Jithur Taluq, Parbhani District. This was established on 6th Khurdad 1353 F and it is stated that this Local Unite was to receive the levy of grain supplied by cultivators and dispose it of as per the instructions of the Govt. It is further stated that the District Commercial Officer of the Corporation received an anonymous report that grain in the godown of this Unit was sold by the members of the Local Unit. The D.C.O. directed the Tehsildar to make enquiries & he also went to the spot, inspected the godowns and affixed seal on them. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1956CriLJ887
Srinivasa Chari, J.1. Being a criminal case of murder where some of the accused have been sentenced to death and the case having come to us for confirmation of the sentences of death I ought to express my opinion about the case separately,2. These are three cases of confirmation and nine cases coming up in appeal on behalf of the accused who stood their trial before the Sessions Judge, Parbhani, on charges of conspiracy and murder.In these cases accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been sentenced to death under Section 302, Penal Code, and they are represented by Shri Nandapurkar. Accused 8 has also been sentenced to death under Section 302 read with Section 109 and he is represented by Shri Peerbhoy while accused 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have been sentenced to transportation for life having been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109. These accused are represented by Shri Deshmukh and Shri Nandapurkar. Accused 9 also has been sentenced to transportation for life for offence under Section 302 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1956]30ITR726(AP)
J.P. Jagan Mohan Reddy, J.1. This application filed under section 109, of the Civil Procedure Code, read with article 133 of the Constitution and section 83 of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act, is for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against an order dated 15th April, 1955, which was on a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Bombay.2. We may at once state that section 83 of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act applies to this case as the assessments which are the subject matter of reference by the Tribunal were made and tax levied under the said Act. Section 83 of the said Act is as under :'(1) When any case has been referred to the High Court under section 82, it shall be heard by a Bench of not less than two judges.(2) An appeal may lie to the Judicial Committee from any judgment of the High Court delivered on a reference made under section 82.(3) The provisions of the Judicial Committee Regulation relating to appeal shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of appeals under th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP461
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The constitutional validity of Section 4-A of the Madras Entertainments Tax Act is put in issue in these writ petitions. The petitioners are exhibitors of Motion Pictures. They are either owners of theatre houses or lessees thereof in various parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh, The Government of Andhra Pradesh imposed a tax on each of the cinematograph exhibitions in the theatres, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 4-A of the impugned legislation. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution to strike down the offending section as being unconstitutional. It is contended that it was ultra vires the powers of the concerned legislature to have passed this measure.2. Before we deal with the various contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is useful to set out the terms of the offending section ;'4-A. (1) In the case of cinematograph exhibitions, in addition to the tax under Section 4, there shall b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP310
Satyanarayana Raju, J.1. The following question has been referred to the Full Bench: 'What is the scope of Sub-rule (c) of Order XXXIX, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure ?' The facts which have given me to this reference may be briefly stated. In execution of the decree obtained by him in O.S. No. 28 of 1933, on the file of the Court of the subordinate Judge of Visakhapatnam, the appellant purchased two items of property subject to the rights of the Rani of Jaipur. The appellant applied for delivery of possession of those items.When notice of this application was given to the Rani, she stated that she had made a gift of them to the respondents and that therefore, she had no longer any subsisting interest in them. The Court directed delivery of the aforesaid items to the appellant. Thereupon the respondents' filed O.S. No. 9 of 1955 on the file of the District Court, Visakha-patnam, for a declaration of their title in respect of the said items and for a permanent injunction restrai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP171; [1959]10STC524(AP)
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. All these petitions raise a question relating to the validity of Rule 31 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957. They bear on the assessment year 1954-55. The petitioners are proprietors of various rice mills situated in different districts of Andhra Pradesh. They deal in paddy, convert paddy into rice in their mills and sell the resultant rice. For the year 1954-55, they submitted returns showing a particular turnover and they were assessed to tax on those turnovers.On the basis of some experiments, carried on by the Department, the concerned Deputy Commissioners of Commercial Taxes issued notices to these petitioners in or about December 1957 calling upon them to show cause why they should not be assessed on the escaped turnover under Rule 31 (1) read with Rule 31 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules. After filing objections before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes raising contentions questioning the jurisdiction of tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP115; [1960]38ITR93(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The principal question raised in all these petitions relate to the constitutionality of the Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in so far as it seeks to levy tax on gifts of agricultural land.2. The Act was passed by the Parliament in the beginning of 1958 and received the assent of the President on 15-5-1958. The report of the Indian Taxation Enquiry Commission, 1953-54 to the Government of India considered the introduction of gift tax in India. The commission remarked that a gift tax though appeared in theory to be an attractive proposition, required considerable experience of the opinion of Estate duty before it could be introduced in this country. A year or two later Prof. Kalder, Reader in Economics. University of Cambridge was invited by the Government of India to examine this question and he made his report to the Union Government in March 1956.His proposal was that a single integrated tax should he imposed on sifts of all kinds (including und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP368
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. These appeals are under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of our learned brother, Bhimasankaram J., in S. A. Nos. 923 and 924 of 3953.2. The plaintiff is the appellant in both these appeals. He instituted two suits (O. S. Nos. 293 and 294 of 1950 on the file of the D. M. C. Nandyal) impeaching two alienations made by the 1st defendant, under Exhibits B.12 and B.13 dated 27-8-1937, and for a declaration in both the suits that' the relative alienations would not bind the reversion. The facts which have contributed to this litigation lie in a narrow compass and could be narrated in a few words. One Hanumantha Reddy, who was a divided brother of the appellant, had an only son who was afflicted with serious illness and which caused an apprehension in the mind of Hanumantha Reddy that his son might not survive long. He, therefore, made a will dated 18th June 1923 (Ex. B. 45), the relevant contents of which are given, hereunder :'I have a son by name S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP286
Krishna Rao, J.1. These are respectively two petitions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the common judgment and separate decrees of this Court in Appeals Nos. 98 and 99 of 1953 and a third petition for the consolidation of these two petitions. They raise a question regarding the applicability of Section 110, Civil Procedure Code and of Article 133of the Constitution of India. As there is a conflict of judicial opinion on this question, the matter has been referred to a Full Bench.2. The material facts may be briefly stated. The petitioner, Kishori Devi, is the transferee of a money decree for a little over Rs. 10,000 passed against one Lakshminarayana Raju in Order Section No. 9 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam. In execution of the decree, she attached a number of immoveable properties in December, 1950 as belonging to the judgment-debtor. The respondents filed two applications for releasing the respective properties mentioned in the...
Tag this Judgment!