Skip to content


Privy Council Cases Home > Privy Council Court: andhra pradesh Page 1 of about 4 results (0.028 seconds)

Oct 27 1932 (PC)

Shahabad Cement Company Vs. H.E.H. the Nizam's Government

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 143Ind.Cas.591

1. The Government as per their letter of Reference No. 201 dated the 31st Khurdad 1341 Fasli has referred the following point s for decision under Section 55 of the Hyderabad Stamp Act No. IV of 1331 Fasli Section 57 of Act II of 1899:(i) Whether the stamp duty on the document in question should be levied under Articles 29, 40 Clause (a) of the Stamp Act; as on a conveyance or under Clause (b) as on a bond.(ii) Has the application been properly presented to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for decision under Section 43 of the Hyderabad Stamp Act (Section 45 of the Indian Stamp Act No. II of 1899)? Can he pass orders irrespective of the bar of limitation?(iii) Are the present proceedings barred by limitation? Are there sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and can the delay be condoned?2. We heard the arguments of the parties and considered the materials on the record. It appears that a Debenture Trust Deed was executed by the Shahabad Cement Company Ltd. When it was present...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 1932 (PC)

Kanhayya Pershad Vs. Gopikishen Ram Dayal

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 143Ind.Cas.29

1. Arguments were heard from the records it appears that the suit was decreed ex parte and the application was presented to set it aside. The learned Judge of the Original Side allowed the application and made the following order:The original decree dated 11th Amerdad 1341 Fasli is set aside to the extent of interest allowing the remaining decree to Stand.2. Against this order the miscellaneous appeal has been filed, before us. There is no doubt that under the law a court has got powers to decree the suit in respect of the matters admitted and to proceed with the suit in respect of the matters dispute. This seems to be the Underlying idea of the original court. But the difficulty is that there is no provision to, allow the farmer decree to stand. When the ex parte judgment is set aside the decree based on that judgment will be deemed to cease to be nullus functo. There is no provision in law to set aside an ex parte order in part. As stated above, ordinarily the ex parte decree will be...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1932 (PC)

Kadur Ramchandram Vs. Kadur Seetamma

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 143Ind.Cas.883

1. The application for revocation of the succession certificate has been dismissed by the District Court, Mahbubnagar. The present appeal is preferred against the said order. The question is whether an appeal against such order is competent. The learned Pleader for the appellant relies upon Section 17 of Act No. III of 1307 Fasli (The Hyderabad Succession Certificate Act). But from the wording of the section it is clear (?) the right of appeal is given to a party aggrieved against the order granting the application for revocation and not when the (application is refused. Vide, Raghunath v. Venkat Anna 3 D.L.R. 540 in this connection. The Pleader for the appellant has also cited Manchharam v. Kalidas 19 B. 821. There is no specific decision on the point in the said case rather the revisional powers of the High Court have been resorted to. At any rate the tenor of the present Act seems to be that the appropriate remedy against such an order is not by way of appeal. However, in view of th...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 1932 (PC)

Madhav Pershad Vs. Meer Hasan Ali and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 143Ind.Cas.535

1. The Pleader for the respondent is heard. The appellant is present in person. The order of the lower Court that the Original Side of the High Court is not competent to entertain the application is correct: Vide Ram Lal v. Kishen Chand 83 Ind. Cas. 531 : 51 I.A. 72 : (1924) M.W.N. 79 : A.I.R. 1924 : P.C. 95 : 8 N.L.J. 62 : 20 N.L.R. 33 : 19 L.W. 549 : 34 M.L.T. 62 : 22 A.L.J. 386 : 46 M.L.J. 628 : 51 C. 351 : 26 Bom. L.R. 586 : 28 C.W.N. 977 : L.R. 5 A.P.C. 216 (P.C.). It might be argued that the application ought to have been returned for presentation to the proper court under Section 72, Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code, Act No. III of 1332 Fasli (Order VII, Rule 11 of Act No. V of 1908). But this argument also is not acceptable because the application to file an award is not a plaint and Section 71 (Order VII Rule 10) ordains the return of the plaint only. Such an application cannot be deemed a plaint for every purpose simply because it is provided in Section 559 (Schedule. No. II pa...

Tag this Judgment!


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