Andhra Pradesh Court March 2016 Judgments
Gurcharan Singh Sahney and Others Vs. Harpreet Singh Chabbra and Other ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2016
Ramesh Ranganathan, J. 1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in Arbtn. O.P. No.2889 of 2014 dated 30.04.2015. Arbitration O.P. No.2889 of 2014 was filed by the petitioners herein, under Sections 14(2) and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the Act ?), to have the order, passed by the 6th respondent-arbitrator dated 15.11.2014, set aside; to direct the sole-arbitrator to terminate his mandate under Sections 12 and 14 of the Act; and to appoint a Retired District Judge as the Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. Petitioners 6 and 7, in Arbitration O.P.No.2889 of 2014, are companies registered under the Companies Act, and are controlled by the family of petitioners 1 to 4. The 5th petitioner is a partnership firm wherein petitioner Nos.1 and 4 are partners. Petitioners 1 to 4 are all part of one family. Respon...
Tag this Judgment!Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Joint Managing ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
Common Judgment: (Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.) Both these writ appeals are preferred by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and its officials under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, calling in question the correctness of the judgment and order rendered on 07.08.2015 in writ petition Nos.18451 and 21988 of 2015. The sole respondent in both these appeals is the writ petitioner concerned, who instituted the aforementioned two writ petitions. Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant “ corporation and Sri B.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents. Since the contentions are common and also in view of the fact that both the writ petitions were decided by a common judgment, it is only appropriate that both these appeals should be disposed of by this common order. For convenience sake, we will set out, in detail, the facts leading to institution of W.P.No.18451 of 2015. The writ petitioner was employed in the service of the appell...
Tag this Judgment!B. Hima Bindu Vs. Commissioner, Customs, CE and Service Tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
Common Order: (Ramesh Ranganathan, J.) These appeals, under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1952, are preferred against the miscellaneous orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore ( CESTAT for short) in Miscellaneous Order Nos.27769-27781/2013 dated 3.7.2014 and 27.10.2014. The dispute, in the appeals filed before the CESTAT, related to the validity of the adjudication orders levying customs duty, interest and penalty on the import of dense wavelength division multiplex equipment (DWDM), and certain imported CDs allegedly used for its functioning. All the appellants are connected with these imports. While some of them are importers, some others are foreign suppliers. The principal importers were M/s Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd ( PISL for short) and M/s VMC Systems Ltd ( VMCL for short). In cases where the software is embedded in the equipment itself, and not supplied separately, the value of such embedded software is i...
Tag this Judgment!Kaadashi Mallesh Vs. State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 21.11.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, wherein and whereby the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli in S.C.No.918 of 2001, dated 16.02.2006, was confirmed. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is three fold. 1) The Courts below failed to appreciate the delay in lodging the complaint which is fatal to the case of prosecution, 2) The Courts below ought not to have convicted the petitioner basing on the sole testimony of P.W.2 who is an interested witness, and 3) The findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse as the same are based on material which is not legally admissible. 3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Court can convict a person basing on the sole testimony of the prosecutri...
Tag this Judgment!Ultra Tech Cement Limited Vs. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of mining lime stone, manufacture and sale of cement. The workman/4th respondent (for short workman) in the writ petition was working in Mines Department. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the allegation of unauthorized absence, which ultimately resulted in dismissal from service by order dated 05.12.2011. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, workman raised industrial dispute and filed claim statement under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act) (state amendment) in the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Anantapur (for short the Tribunal'). The award was made on 02.05.2014 setting aside the order of dismissal from service. The petitioner was directed to reinstate the employee into service with continuity of service and all attendant benefits. However, the Tribunal denied back wages. Challenging the said award this w...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sivaraj Madiga and Others M. Durga Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
This revision is preferred by the defendants in O.S.No.1515 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Ranga Reddy District. The sole respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The said suit is instituted under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (for short the Act') seeking directions to the defendants to handover physical possession of the suit schedule property comprising of 77 square yards in plot No.10, survey No.11/1 situated at Harijan Colony, Habsiguda, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The 1st petitioner/1st defendant herein was the predecessor-in-interest and title of the suit schedule land. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the 1st petitioner/1st defendant has purchased the suit schedule land forming Plot No.10 admeasuring 150 square yards through a registered sale deed dated 16.04.2003 bearing document No.4431 of 2003 from Sri S.Anand George and his brother Sri S.Dilip George. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that he has...
Tag this Judgment!Addagiri Gopal and Another Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represente ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
Common order: 1. Since the subject matter of these two Writ Petitions is related, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. W.P.No.33312 of 2014 is filed by petitioner therein seeking a declaration that the inaction of respondent nos.1 to 3 in taking action against respondent nos.4 to 5 therein under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, the Act') for willfully disobeying the order dt.26.07.2014 of the Deputy registrar of Co-operative Societies/3rd respondent therein in A.R.C.No.1 of 2013 is illegal, arbitrary and seeking consequential orders. The petitioner in W.P.No.33312 of 2014 is arrayed as 3rd respondent in 3. W.P.No.2785 of 2015 is filed by the petitioner therein challenging the order dt.26.07.2014 of 3rd respondent in A.R.C.No.1 of 2013. 4. The Dharmavaram Co-operative Town Bank Limited is a Society registered under the Act. It is the 5th respondent in WP.No.33312 of 2014 and petitioner in WP.No.2785 of 2015. 5. For the sake...
Tag this Judgment!J. Yadagiri Reddy and Others Vs. J. Hemalatha and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
This revision is preferred by the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the suit, who are the respondents as such in I.A.No.1295 of 2014. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff, while the remaining 3 respondents are defendant Nos.2, 5 and 6. I.A.No.1295 of 2014 is filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. O.S.No.1383 of 2005 is instituted seeking partition and separate possession by metes and bounds in accordance with the shares of the parties and for allotment of the share of the plaintiff to the extent of Ac.5.00 gts in Sy.No.30 part, Sy.No.31 part, Sy.No.58 part and Sy.No.59 part of Dasarlapally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The 2nd relief claimed therein was for cancellation of registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.3103 of 2003 and 3104 of 2003 dated 12.12.2003. The 3rd relief is for appointment of an Advocate-commissioner to demarcate the suit schedule properties and to allot the share of the plaintiff and the defendants...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Tej Babu Vs. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to declare order dated 13-01-2016 in File No.B/3860/2015 of respondent No.2 whereby he has allowed the claim of respondent No.3 in respect of plot No.1205, Jubilee Hills Cooperative Society, Road No.60, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short the Act ?) against the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. Respondent No.3 filed a claim before respondent No.2 under the Act with the following averments: Respondent No.3 was the wife of one late M.P. Damodar and they have four children i.e., one son “ the petitioner, and three daughters. The husband of respondent No.3 left behind sufficient property to meet her necessities during her old age. When respondent No.3 was staying with the petitioner, she underwent harrowing experiences. Because of the ill-treatment meted out to her by the petitioner, she was forced to stay with her daughter. The husban...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Faheem Uddin Vs. Shaik Nayeem
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
This Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 15-10-2015, passed in I.A.No.634 of 2015 in OP.No.235 of 2014 by the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge and Election Tribunal, Nizamabad. The Revision petitioner was the petitioner before the Tribunal and the 1st respondent was the election petitioner/respondent and they will be hereinafter referred to as revision petitioner and 1st respondent for convenience of reference. The revision petitioner (the 1st respondent in Election petition) filed petition under Sections 71, 72 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short the Act ?) and rule 100 (3) of A.P.Municipal Corporations (Conduct of Election of Members) Rules, 2005 ( for short Election Rules, 2005 ?) alleging that he contested for the office of Corporator from Division/ward No.29, Nizamabad Municipal Corporation held on 30-03-2014. The revision petitioner was declared as elected for the Division/wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »