Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD408; 2002(1)ALT241
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Whether the State Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') has jurisdiction to condone delay in filing review petition is the question referred to this Full Bench.FACTS:2. The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable in the Armed Reserve Police of Karimnagar District in the year 1990. By an order dated 31-10-1991, the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that he did not undergo the three star test at the time of selection. He filed O.A.No. 47791 of 1991 before the learned Tribunal challenging the order of termination wherein direction was given to the respondent to conduct the test for the petitioner. The respondent found that the petitioner did not come up for selection in the test conducted. The petitioner challenged the said order in O.A.No. 4322 of 1993. The learned Tribunal by reason of an order dated 6-3-1995 allowed the O.A., filed by the petitioner. As the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(1)ALT439
ORDERImmaneni Panduranga Rao, J.1. This writ petition is filed by a Senior Advocate for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay Rs. 2,18,600/- (Rupees two lakhs eighteen thousand and six hundred only) together with simple interest at 12% per annum from 1st April, 1966 to the date of payment.2. The claim of the petitioner is that he worked as the Legal Adviser to Messrs Jayanthi Shipping Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') for the years 1961 to 1966; that he has been submitting a diary of work done for the company regularly for each year's work done, in. the subsequent year: that the company was usually making payments in the next financial year for the work done in the previous year; that the company was taken over with its assets and liabilities by the respondent; that as such the respondent is bound to pay whatever sum is due to the petitioner from the company; that there was lot of correspondence between the parties; that the petitioner addressed s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1994AP170; 1993(1)ALT608
1. Second Appeals Nos. 268 of 1985, 832 of 1987 and 378 of 1986 were heard by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of V. Sivaraman Nair and D. J. Jagannadha Raju, JJ. In these appeals, Banking Companies are the appellants, while in A.S. No. 1778 of 1984 Union Bank of India is the first, respondent.2. The main point that was debated before the Division Bench was regarding applicability of Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to the transactions entered into between a Banking Company and its debtors.3. On behalf of the Banking Companies, it was contended that after coming into force of Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short 'Regulation Act, 19490, Courts are prohibited/debarred from reopening the transactions entered into between the Banking Company and its debtor invoking the provisions of Usurious Loans Act, 1918 (for short 'Act 10 of 1918') irrespective of the fact whether the transaction was entered into prior to the coming into force of Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ALT611
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court issued rule nisi on 19-4-2007.2. Counter affidavits, additional affidavits and reply affidavits were filed and written arguments also were submitted in addition to the submissions made by the respective Counsel in open Court. Certain subsequent events also were brought to the notice of the Court and apart from the material papers initially placed, additional material papers as well had been placed before this Court.3. M/s. Ghanta Infrastructure Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, represented by its Director Sri M. Raghuveer, filed the present Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings ARG-II/PJ/FY07/04568 dated 12-12-2006 and the consequential proceedings ARG 1/PJ/FY07/04730 dated 22-12-2006 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to accept the bid of the petitioner in respect of the bus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(1)ALT113
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Sri B. Subba Reddy, represented by his General Power of Attorney Holder filed the present writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent-appellate authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, New Delhi in an appeal No. 48 of 2005, dated 28-12-2005 and consequently allow the appeal of the petitioner as prayed for and to grant such other suitable relief.2. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri A. Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General, Smt. M. Lakshmi Kumari, Shri P. Vikram representing Sri K. Kodanda Ram, Sri K.Gopalakrishna Murthy, Sri V.V.S.N. Raju, the learned Counsel representing the respective respondents.3. At the outset it can be stated that the serious contest appears to be between the petitioner Sri B. Subba Reddy and the 6th respondent Sri V.N. Sunanda Reddy, Managing Director, M/s ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD184; 2006(4)ALT374
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. The action of the respondents, in placing large extents of land in Yerranagavari Palle village and in paimash Nos. 120 to 139 of Penubalakala hamlet in Chittoor District in the Prohibitory Book Register, is under challenge in this writ petition. Consequential directions are sought to implement G.O.Ms. No. 439 dated 13-3-1957 and to include the name of the petitioner, in the revenue records, as the owner of these lands.2. The facts, to the extent necessary, are that Punganoor Zamin estate was notified on 07-09-1950 and was finally taken over by the Government, under the A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Act 26 of 1948), on 22-07-1952. When the Zamin was notified and taken over a representation was submitted by the Zamindar to the government on 17-11-1952 stating that certain lands purchased by his ancestors more than 80 years before abolition of the Estate, and which were his personal property, did not form part of the 'Estate'. G.O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(5)ALT200
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri S. Venkat Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce, the learned Government Pleader for Forests, the learned Assistant Solicitor General and also Sri S.R. Ashok, the learned senior Counsel, representing the respective respondents.2. The writ petitioner M/s.Exotic Granite Exports, filed the present Writ Petition praying for quashing the proceedings of 1st respondent in Memo No. 1220/M.II(1)/07, dated 16-3-2007 (P1) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the name of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the same is arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust, violative of the principles of natural justice and financial rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and the Rules made under Section 4(1) of the Act and issue a conseque...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1996AP413; 1996(2)ALT757; [1999]96CompCas645b(AP)
ORDERP.S. Mishra, J. 1. These petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India have in general questioned admission as members several persons in the Hyderabad Stock Exchange Limited. The Exchange, it is not in dispute, is a public limited company. It is, however, recognised by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) as a Stock Exchange on its willingness to comply with the conditions under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and is thus subject to the control and regulations relating in general to its constitution and in particular, besides other items, to the admission into the Stock Exchange of various classes of members, the qualifications for membership and the exclusion, suspension, expulsion and re-admission of members therefrom or thereinto. The Exchange in its extraordinary General Body Meeting, on 24-8-1992, however, introduced an amendment to its Articles of Association and increased the maximum number of members from 200 to 300. In another General...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2102
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This matter has come up before this Court on a reference by a learned single Judge of this Court to consider the question:Whether the date of filing of the complaint or the date of the court taking cognizance of the offence is relevant for the purpose of Section 468 Cr.P.C.2. The question of law involved in this case, though short one, has been the subject of conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court in Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran 1990 (Supp) SCC 121 and Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 27 (SC).3. The learned single Judge expressed his inability to agree with the view taken by this Court in Crl.P. No. 3572/2003 wherein it was held that the date of taking cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate is relevant and not the date of filing of the complaint before the court for the purpose of Section 468 Cr.P.C. Hence made the reference. 4. In order to appreciate the question arising for determination, facts-in-brief may be stated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD563; 2003(1)ALT276
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants 1 and 106 arising out of IA No. 926 of 2002 in OS No. 38 of 2002, which is pending on the File of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at NTR Nagar.2. It appears from the record that the respondents 1 and 2, who were plaintiffs in the suit, had filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants-appellants herein and some other respondents herein, which was numbered as OS No. 38 of 2002.3. The parties to the appeal are described as arrayed in the original suit.4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed IA No. 926 of 2002 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC with a prayer to grant temporary injunction against the defendants 1 and 106 restraining them from alienating the plaint schedule property to the extent of Ac.379-10 guntas situated at Bachepally Village.5. The second plaintiff in her affidavit stated that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to her father late Mohd. Naw...
Tag this Judgment!