Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Year: 1964 Page 2 of about 21 results (0.054 seconds)

Aug 28 1964 (HC)

Konathala Sriamulu and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue (C.T.), Hyderabad

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-28-1964

Reported in : AIR1965AP395

..... the memorandum of appeal; and if the remand is on second appeal, also on the memorandum of appeal in the first appellate court, and if the remand is in letters patent appeal, also on the memorandum of second appeal and memorandum of appeal in the first appellate court.'(4) it is seen that the jurisdiction of this court is subject limitations .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 1964 (HC)

Akarapu Rajachanna Visweswara Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andh ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-07-1964

Reported in : AIR1965AP1

..... power under section 35 of the act. his argument is that a mistake must not involve an elaborate enquiry into the facts, but the mistake should be apparent i.e. , patent from the record, and in exercise of the power under section 35 should not deprive the petitioner of his right to appeal against the original assessment order. while it is ..... either the question of fact or law, in such a case also it may contended that such mistake is not apparent from the record. but in cases where omission is patent, it can hardly be argued that such an omission does not constitute a mistake within the meaning of section 35 of the act. what has happened in this case is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 08 1964 (HC)

Public Prosecutor Vs. V. Nagabhushanam

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-08-1964

Reported in : AIR1965AP118; 1965CriLJ420

..... analysis. the oil was found to be adulterated. the case, therefore, falls fairly with sec. 7(i) of the act. the very definition of the word 'sale' makes this position patent. (27) now the relevant provisions of the act may be noticed. section 16 provides for the penalties for offences under the act and reads as follows: '16 (1) if any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 1964 (HC)

A. Janardhana Rao Vs. Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kakinada and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-18-1964

Reported in : AIR1965AP115

..... a right of appeal on a person who 'having opposed the grant of a permit, is aggrieved by the grant thereof or by any condition attached thereto'. in a letter patent appeal preferred from the decision of subba rao, j. (as he then was), a division bench of the madras high court consisting of rajamannar, c. j. and venkatarama ayyar, j ..... the act was one of the material points raised before subba rao, j. who disposed of the writ petition and also before the division bench, which disposed of the letters patent appeal. it is beyond the pale of possible doubt that the determination of the question whether a right of appeal was conferred in that case by s. 64(b) of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 1964 (HC)

Vallabhaneni Vimalamba Vs. Ghanta Ratnamma and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-03-1964

Reported in : AIR1966AP26

..... enquiry. on the facts of this case, no further enquiry is necessary, and in fact, no evidence need be adduced about the mistake committed when it is so obvious and patent. the learned district munsif dismissed the application on account of the erroneous view of section 152 and section 151 c. p. c. which is not sustainable as already stated.for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 1964 (HC)

Kidambi Vatapatra Sayi Vs. V. Venkata Punnayya and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-17-1964

Reported in : AIR1965AP353

venkatesam, j.(1) this l. p. a. arises our o. s. no 14 of 1955 on the file of subordinate judge, guntur. the facts necessary for the determination of the question in issue may be stated thus.(2) the plaintiff , kidambi vatapatra sayi, and defendants 1 to 3 are shareholders and directors of chandra art studios ltd., madras, a company registered under the indian companies act, 1913 in july 1946. the authorised share capital of the company is rs. 3 lakhs, divided into three hundred shares of rs. 1,000/- each. the value of each share, viz., rs. 1,000/- is payable with application for shares. all shares have been subscribed and thus the share capital is fully paid up. at the inception, besides the plaintiff and the three defendants, there were two other directors. the plaintiff was the chairman of the board of directors throughout. for reasons, which we need not consider, the company, not long after commenced business, found itself in financial difficulties. c. v. reddy, who held ten fully paid up shares, filed o. p. no. 253 of 1950 on the file of the madras high court for winding up of the company. the plaintiff and the defendants considered that the only way of saving the company and safeguarding the interests of the share holders was to get that petition withdrawn. accordingly, it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants that the plaintiff should advance rs. 10,000/- pay venkata reddi, and obtain a transfer of his shares in the name of the plaintiff . since the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 08 1964 (HC)

Mothey Gangaraju, Zamindar and Sons Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-08-1964

Reported in : AIR1965AP60; [1965]16STC205(AP)

narasimham, j.(1) this is an appeal against the judgment of venkatesam, j. in s. a. no. 421 of 1957 by which he dismissed the suit filed by the respondent therein for the recovery of rs. 1919-7-0 as interest at 6 per cent per annum on the sales tax collected from it on 26-2-1954. (2) the only point involved is whether the state of andhra, which levied the said tax, is liable to pay interest from the date of collection to the date of decree, having refunded the tax collected with interest from the date of decree. (3) the learned district munsif dismissed the claim. on appeal the additional district judge decreed the claim. our learned brother set aside the order on appeal and restored that of the district munsif. (4) the relevant facts, about which there is no controversy, are these : the appellant-plaintiff is an assessee. it is a registered firm carrying on business on commission agency and independently in certain commodities. it was assessed to a tax of rs. 7248-6-2 on its business for the year 1945-46. in a suit levy filed by the firm, o. s. no. 111 of 1952, the said levy was held to be illegal. after the said declaration by the court, the amount, which was collected, was refunded together with interest from the date of such pronouncement. the present suit was laid claiming interest on the amount collected at 6 per cent per annum from the date of collection, to wit, 26-9-49 to 25-2-1954 when the levy was declared illegal. (5) in plain para 8, it is alleged thus :'the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1964 (HC)

Duddu Koteswara Rao Vs. Motumarru Sambiah and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-21-1964

Reported in : AIR1966AP252

chandra reddy, c.j. 1. the proper interpretation of exs a. 1 and b. 1 is the subject matter of this appeal. the question that poses for consideration is whether the transaction evidenced by these two documents is a mortgage by conditional sale or an outright purchase. 2. the property in dispute is a house site and terraced rooms situate therein. the agreement to sell this property appears to have been entered into on 16-7-1923 for a sum of rupees 8,400 and the whole of the consideration paid at about the time; but the document of sale was not executed fill 2-8-1925, on the same day, the transferees executed an instrument agreeing to reconvey the property if the sum of rupees 8,400 paid to the transferor was repaid to him with interest at 1 per cent per mensem. under this document the option to repurchase was to be exercised between 2-2-1926 and 30-7-1927. the transferor did not avail himself of this right within the stipulated period. nothing was done by him in this behalf till 7-2-1950 when he called upon the transferees to retransfer the property to him on receipt of such amounts as might be found due on taking of accounts. the transferees refused to comply with this demand and sold the property in their turn on 12-7-1950 for a sum of rs. 20,000 to a firm of which chebrolu audinarayana, chebrolu chenchu subbiah, vura venkateswarlu and kurapati raghavulu, were the partners. notwithstanding this, no action was taken by him till 29-1-1953 when the present action was initiated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 1964 (HC)

Nawab Ghazi Jung Vs. the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Hyderaba ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-28-1964

Reported in : AIR1965AP218; [1965]56ITR8(AP)

order(1) the petitioner is an 'accountable person' within the meaning of sec. 53 of the estate duty act (hereinafter referred to as the act). the property in respect of which he has to pay estate duty belonged to his wife who died on 30-9-1955. she was one of the several heirs of late nawab salar jung. the petitioner as the person to whom the property passed on the death of his wife, filed an account on 10-2-1961 declaring rs. 1,300/- as the value of the property . but subsequently it was found that his deceased wife had a 6 1/2 / 192 share in the salar jung estate. this share was valued by the assistant controller ( respondent ) at rs. 4,84,713/-. to this was added the sum of rs. 1,300/- which represented the value of the personal belongings of the petitioner's deceased wife. the respondent assessed the duty on the estate at rs. 49,152/-. of this, rs. 23,109/- represented the duty on immovable property . a notice of demand under sec. 73(1) of the act was served on the petitioner on 25-7-1963 and he was called upon to pay the duty by the fifteenth of august, 1963. after making some comparatively small payments towards the duty, the petitioner applied to the respondent to permit him to exercise the option of paying the duty, payable by him on immovable property, in four equal annual instalments. this application was based on sec. 70(2) of the act. the contention of the petitioner was that the first of the four yearly instalments contemplated by section 70(2) was payable of 15- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 1964 (HC)

V. Ramachandra Rao and ors. Vs. the Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-24-1964

Reported in : AIR1965AP306

order(1) the petitioners who are five members of the andhra pradesh legislative assembly, seek a declaration that the proceedings of the andhra pradesh regional committee, dated 10-7-1964 at the 19th meeting are null and void and further ask for an order of direction under art. 226 of the constitution to compel the chairman of the said committee to convene a fresh meeting of the committee after issuing proper notice to all the members thereof including the petitioners for considering the andhra pradesh gram panchayat amendment bill, 1964 which had been referred to it by the andhra pradesh legislative assembly. along with this petition under art. 226, the petitioners have filed a c. m. p. to restrain, until disposal of the main petition, the council of ministers represented by the chief minister, from presenting the two bills to the governor under art. 200 of the constitution. the main petition and the c. m. p. have been heard together as desired by both sides and can, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment. (2) before proceeding further/, it is necessary to refer to art. 371(1) of the constitution which was substituted by the constitution (seventh amendment) act, 1956. it reads : 'notwithstanding anything in this constitution, the president may, by order made with respect to the state of andhra pradesh or punjab, provide for the constitution and functions of regional committees of the legislative assembly of the state, for the modifications to be made in the rules of .....

Tag this Judgment!

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