Andhra Pradesh Court October 2015 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.
Ankem Madhava Rao and Another Vs. Simhadri Rama Rao and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XLIII Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( ˜the Code', for short) assailing the orders dated 27.10.2014 of the learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada of Krishna District passed in IA.No.426 of 2014 in OS.No.353 of 2014 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code to grant a temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the plaintiffspeaceful possession and enjoyment of the item nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property. 2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners/plaintiffs ( ˜the plaintiffs', for brevity) and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants ( ˜the defendants', for brevity). I have perused the material record. 3. The pleadings of the parties that are necessary for consideration in this appeal, in brief, are as follows: 3.1 The...
A.V. Koti Reddy and Others Vs. The Union of India, rep.by its Secretar ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
1. This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief; ..to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in commencing and proceeding with the road cutting and laying of pipeline work in Road No.79 and 82 of Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad from 6-5-5015 onwards and the Order of the 5th Respondent vide Lr.No.18/DB/GM(E)/PD- IV/KDWSP/PH-III/Pkg-IX/2015-16/3C dated 23-4-2015 and License No.LandO/M7/52/2015 dated 5.1.2015 granted by the 3rd Respondent to the 9th Respondent permitting blasting and road cutting in the thickly populated residential area of Road Nos.79 and 82, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad without considering and disposing of the objections/representations of the Petitioners dated 17.2.2015 and 7.5.2015, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently, direct the respondents to lay the pipeline from the vast open and uninhabit...
M/s. Kuoni Travel (India) Private Limited, Mumbai, reptd., by its Auth ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
This Company Petition is filed for an order to wind up the respondent for non-payment of the debt due to the petitioner. I have heard Mr. Gandham Durga Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Laxmi Narasimham, learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the Act'). The petitioner is a travel agent which was looking after the needs of the respondent in the matter of arranging air tickets, visas, etc. The respondent has approached the petitioner and entrusted the work of arranging visa to its Managing Director in February, 2014, for his visit to France from 17.3.2014 to 22.3.2014. It is the pleaded case of the respondent that on 25.02.2014, all the relevant documents including the passport of its Managing Director were handed over at the local office of the petitioner at Hyderabad for processing visa. However, the respondent could secure visa to its Managing Director only on 25.3.2014. As the petitioner w...
Puvvada Venkata Krishna Rao Vs. The Collector and District Magistrate ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2015
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the Order in Essential Commodities Act Case No.151/2007-S7, dated 11-02-2009, of respondent No.1, whereby he has directed the petitioner, who was the custodian of the seized and confiscated stocks, to pay the value of the same by 26.02.2009. Respondent No.3 is a trader in pulses. His premises was inspected by the Deputy Tahsildar along with the Sub Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Vinukonda, Guntur, and the Agricultural Officer, Office of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Guntur, on 17-02-2007. As certain variations in the stocks were, allegedly, found, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Vinukonda, while sending a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the Act'), seized the stocks and entrusted the same to the petitioner to be kept under his custody. In the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the only charge framed against respondent No.3 was that he has...
Finacus Solutions Private Limited Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Through ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2015
1. This writ petition is filed for declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 5 in (a) allowing the third respondent company to participate in the financial bid of the tender No.APCOB/EFT/ Switch, dated 19.03.2014 even though it had failed to satisfy the pre-qualification conditions as stipulated in the tender; (b) considering the third respondent as L-1 even when its financial bid was in violation of various terms and conditions prescribed in the tender; and (c) inviting the third respondent for negotiations on 22.07.2015 to finalize the tender process, as illegal and arbitrary and to pass a consequential direction to the respondents 2 and 5 to declare the third respondent to be disqualified from the tender process. 2. The petitioner company is an ISO 9001 and 27001 certified company and its products excel in providing innovative integrated software solutions and services. The second respondent-Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited (APCOB) had floated a Request For Proposal...
Chintha Muniswamy Vs. The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Tra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2015
1. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour and Sri A. Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3-APSRTC. 2. The petitioner was appointed as driver in the year 1987 in the Corporation after undergoing due process of selection. His services were regularised in the year 1989. While so, he was removed from service by the 1st respondent vide order dated 27.02.2012. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal on 08.03.2013 under Regulation 22 of APSRTC, CC and A Regulation 1967 before the 2nd respondent within time, but his appeal was rejected on 06.03.2014 confirming the order of the 1st respondent. Feeling aggrieved, he preferred a revision under Regulation 29 of the APSRTC, CC and A Regulation 1967 before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent vide order dated 30.03.2014 rejected the revision petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for ...
The Krishna District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Co. op Union Vs. Th ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2015
Common Order: All these writ petitions are directed against the common order passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Gudiwada, Krishna District, condoning the delay ranging from 63 to 1095 days in preferring claim petitions for payment of differential amount of gratuity by the respective employees of the writ petitioner/employer. Hence, they are heard together and are decided by this common order. The petitioner is the Krishna District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union, Vijayawada (henceforth referred to as the employer). There is no dispute that the respondent/employee concerned in each of these cases has rendered service to the petitioner/employer and retired from its service on attaining the age of superannuation. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/employer has settled and paid the amount of gratuity payable to them as expeditiously as possible after his retirement. However, each of these employ...
Potlabathuni Srikanth and Others Vs. Shriram City Union Finance Limite ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2015
Common Order: (A. Shankar Narayana, J.) 1. Since point of law is common in all these revisions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Aggrieved of the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge of Mangalagiri, Peddapuram, Gajuwaka and Chittoor, respectively, these Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the respective judgment-debtor(s) in C.F.R. No.2546 of 2014 in E.P. No.50 of 2014, C.F.R. No.2548 of 2014 in E.P. No.42 of 2014, E.P. No.31 of 2013, E.P. No.115 of 2013 and E.P. No.61 of 2012, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC'), mainly, on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction in view of definition of Courtas envisaged under Section 2(1)(e) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act'). C.R.P. No.1340 of 2015: 3. (a) The revision petitioner herein is petitioner -judgment-debtor No.3 in C.F.R. No.2546 of 2014 in E.P. No.50 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, and respondent No.3 in A.O.P. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›