Andhra Pradesh Court July 2008 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.
Indian Bank Vs. Prisma Home Appliance Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas707(AP); [2009]92SCL91(AP)
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. Since these two appeals assail the very same proceedings and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, hence, they are taken up together for disposal.2. The appellant in O.S.A No. 53 of 2006 is the Indian Bank, which seeks to assail the orders of the learned Single Judge in allowing the application filed by the Official Liquidator representing the company in liquidation seeking to set aside the sale as void as per the orders passed in Company Application No. 1193 of 2005 in Company Petition No. 81 of 1996 dated 7.3.2006. Whereas, the appellant in the other appeal i.e., O.S.A No. 41 of 2007 is the third party/purchaser who having purchased the property that was sold in auction conducted by the bank and seeks to assail the very same order.3. Briefly stated facts, which are not much in controversy are that the company in question viz., M/s. Prism Home Appliances Private Limited was ordered to be wound up by this Court on the Original Side of Company jurisdiction ...
Andhra Cements Limited Vs. Bhatia International Ltd. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas681(AP)
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. The appellant herein is a company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (for short herein after referred to as the Act) which has filed this appeal under Section 483 of the Act read with Clause 15 of the Letter Patent, inter-alia seeking to assail the orders of the learned Single Judge in Company Petition No. 75 of 2006 dated 23.1.2007 by the learned Single Judge admitting the company petition, filed under Section 433(f) and 439 of the Act read with Rule 95 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1956 seeking for winding up of the appellant company herein and for consequential appointment of provisional liquidator, and rejecting the objection raised on behalf of the appellant herein.2. The facts, though not in detail but which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant company was incorporated on 1.11.1936 and its registered office is situated at Chandralok Complex, S.D. Road, Secunderabad and its administrative office ...
Voltas Ltd. by Its Authorized Signatory K. Srinivas Chary Vs. Allwyn A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: AIR2008AP258; 2008(5)ALT570; [2009]91SCL86(AP)
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful applicant, who seeks to assail the orders rejecting his application purported to have been filed under Section 476 and 457(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 r/w Rule 338 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, by the learned Single Judge as per the orders in C.A. No. 1118 of 2005 in C.P. No. 99 of 2000, dated 14-02-2007.2. Heard Sri M.S. Ramchandra Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Official Liquidator.3. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of the issue though appears to be an intrigues one but, which however, arises in all most in every liquidation proceedings and revolves around the various expressions used under the provisions of the Companies Act, which falls for consideration at different levels. The appellant is the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.7-14 guntas, which consists of the buildings and structures thereon, situat...
Ch. Uma Maheswar Rao S/O. Koteswara Rao Vs. the Government of Andhra P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: AIR2008AP246; 2008(5)ALD449
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The writ petitioner is the elected President of the 4th respondent-Society. This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the 3rd respondent/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 4.07.2008 issued under Section 34-A of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') thereby convening a meeting on 23.07.2008 for consideration of the no-confidence motion against the writ petitioner.2. It is not in dispute that there are 13 elected Directors in the 4th respondent-Society including the President and the Vice President. Out of them, 9 Directors i.e., respondent Nos. 5 to 13 herein, submitted a representation dated 9.5.2008 in person to the 3rd respondent expressing lack of confidence in the President of the Society i.e., the writ petitioner. On the basis of the said representation, the 3rd respondent initially, vide proceedings dated 25.05.2008 convened a meeting on 13.06.2008 for consideration of the no-confidence motion against ...
Authorised Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal Vs. Koka Ramadasappa (Died) ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD665
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Kuncheam Maheshwar Rao and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration.2. The Authorized Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur being aggrieved of the order made in LRA No. 3/99 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur dated 31.1.2005 had preferred CRP No. 3685/2005 under Section 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience). As against the self-same order being aggrieved of a portion of the order, the claimants also filed CRP No. 6002 of 2005.3. Sri Kuncheam Maheshwar Rao placed strong reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in V. Ramachandra Reddy v. Government of A.P. 1995 (3) ALT 203 (DB) and would maintain that in the light of the same, CRP No. 3685/2005 filed by the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur to be dismissed. Further the learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of t...
K. Shyam Sunder Vs. Apsrtc and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD772
ORDERG. Chandraiah, J.1. Heard both the Counsel.2. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus calling for the records relating to the office Order No. PA/20(198)/2000-HCR dated 12.9.2001 issued by the 2nd respondent - The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad City Region, JBS Picket, Secunderabad and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the respondents to implement the Proc. PA/20(198)/2000-HCR dated 18.1.2001 without imposing the condition of giving in writing about acceptance of the conditions imposed in the said proceedings dated 18.1.2001.3. The case of the petitioner, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that, he was appointed as Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') and by proceedings No. P3/l(3)/2000-MSRD dated 18.5.2000, he was removed from service and he preferred appeal and the same was rejected by proceedings No. APA/19(89)/2000-DVM-CR dated 11.9.2000 and ...
S. Jayashree Vs. Secretary, A.P. Bar Council and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD120
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. This is an application to restore WPMP No. 16631 of 2006 in WP No. 13378 of 2006.2. Heard Sri D. Venkateswarlu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record3. WPMP No. 16631 of 2006 was posted for hearing on 22.4.2008. As there was no representation for the petitioner at the hearing, the said application was dismissed by this Court for default. The petitioner in the said WPMP, who is also the writ petitioner, filed the present application to restore the said WPMP. In her affidavit she stated that on 27.6.2008 she obtained a slip from the Court for listing of WPMP. No. 16631 of 2006, that as the application was not listed on 30.6.2008, as expected by her, she made enquiries with the registry and that the section clerk in-charge of the case brought to her notice on 30.6.2008 that the WPMP was listed before this Court on 21.4.2008 and that order was passed on the said date. She also averred that to her surprise no order was passed on 21.4.2008....
Manda Syamsundra Vs. Kurella Anjaneyachari and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD(Cri)349; 2008(3)ALT(Cri)100; IV(2008)BC673
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. The accused in C.C. No. 444 of 2006, preferred the present revision case challenging the order of the Junior Civil Judge/Judicial First Class Magistrate, Macherla in Criminal M.P. No. 925 of 2008 in C.C. No. 444 of 2006. The Criminal Case was filed against him for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). It is mentioned in the complaint that the accused gave Ex. P-3 cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt and when he presented the same before the Bank, the Bank returned the said cheque with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Subsequently, after issuing notice to the accused and after complying the formalities required under the Act, the complainant filed the above complaint. The accused took the defence that Exs. P-1 and P-2 promissory notes and Ex. P-3 cheque are fabricated on account of vengeance against him. During the pendency of the case, when the case was posted for Section 313, Cr.P.C examination, the...
Akella Venkata Rama Subrahmanya Sarma Vs. Annangi Sreeramamurti
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD534; 2008(5)ALT369
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 51 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, had preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree made therein directing the appellant-defendant to execute a regular registered sale deed and deliver possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within a period of three months granting relief of specific performance.2. The said suit for specific performance was instituted on the strength of an agreement of sale dated 03.6.1982 executed by the appellant-defendant. The execution of the said agreement of sale dated 03.6.1982 marked as Ex.A-2 is not in serious controversy. However, the appellant-defendant had taken a specific stand that the said agreement of sale cannot be enforced, since the plaint schedule property is the joint family property of appellant-defendant and his sons and the sons are not parties to the said Ex.A-2 and, hence, the same is not enforceable and incidenta...
B. Venkataiah S/O. Sivaiah, Waterman-cum-gardener Vs. the Government o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD764; 2009(1)ALT404
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The power to relax a condition of service or a rule laying a condition of service is an exception to general principle that all must be treated equally in the matter of public employment. So as to remove hardship resulting from application of rigorous rule, competent authority is conferred with power of relaxation in appropriate cases. Can such competent authority in purported exercise of discretion discriminate between two employees who are almost similarly situated, without following Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India? That is the short question, which is thrown up by present writ petition filed by a last grade employee in the Unit of District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.2. Sri B. Venkataiah, petitioner, was appointed as part time/contingent Masalchi and subsequently upgraded to post of full time contingent employee. He is now working as waterman/gardener in the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. Whatever be the reason behind it,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »