Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-23-2008
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
Decided on : Mar-26-2008
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
Decided on : Apr-21-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)ALD752; 2008(3)ALT336
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. These three Writ Petitions raise common issues of facts and law. Hence, they are being disposed of together.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18757 of 2007 owns an extent of Ac.6.20 guntas; the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 14062 of 2007, who are two in number, together own Ac.9.39 guntas; and the four petitioners in Writ Petition No. 22052 of 2007 together own about Ac.4.19 guntas in various survey numbers of Narsingi village, Rajendra Nagar' Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.3. Respondent No. 1 initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the 1894 Act') for acquisition of the above-mentioned extents of lands, along with the lands belonging to others, for the purpose of construction of Outer Ring Road (for short 'the ORR'). For the lands covered by Writ Petition Nos. 18757 and 14062 of 2007, notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act was issued on 4-4-2006; declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was published on 6-4-200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-17-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ALT257
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent-Industrial Development Bank of India in issuing Notices dated 5.2.2007 and 7.4.2007 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the Act') as arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed to it under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The Managing Director of the petitioner-company, who had sworn in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, had stated that the respondents, after issuing the notices impugned in the writ petition, lodged a caveat under Section 148-A CPC on 7.8.2007 and they were later served with advance notices of the writ petition. He had further stated that the petitioner-company was registered in the year 1997 with the sole intent of manufacturing a highly specialized material call...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-19-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)ALT710
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. An interesting question of importance arises in the writ petition. Whether the owner who obtained release of confiscable motor vehicle allegedly involved in the commission of an offence under Section 13(2) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 (Prohibition Act, for brevity) is obliged to honour the Bank Guarantee (BG), (furnished as per the orders of the Court) after lapse of some time when for obvious reasons value of vehicle seized and confiscated as per law depreciates to a lesser value than BG amount?2. M/s. Sriram Transport Finance Company Limited having its registered office at Chennai in Tamil Nadu, advanced loan to one Ch. Sarada (hirer, for brevity) for purchase of TATA Goods Vehicle bearing No. AP 26 T 2039 under an agreement, dated 05.06.1996. During subsistency of such agreement, vehicle was seized on 28.07.1996 by the Excise Officials for involvement in a commission of offence under Prohibition Act. The lorry was found carrying 360 full bottles of I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-01-2008
Reported in : 2008(6)ALT33
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Defendants 7 to 9 in O.S. No. 66/82 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment made therein preferred A.S. No. 335/97. Likewise, the unsuccessful 2nd defendant being aggrieved of the said Decree and Judgment preferred A.S. No. 371/97. The appellant/2nd defendant in A.S. No. 371/97 was shown as 4th respondent in A.S. No. 335/97. Respondents 4, 5 and 6 in A.S. No. 335/97 died and the legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 12 to respondents 22 by virtue of an order dated 1-10-2007 made in A.S.M.P. Nos. 930, 2055 and 2053/2007. The legal representatives of the deceased 4th respondent were shown as respondents 21 and 22 and the legal representatives of the 6th respondent were shown as respondents 15 to 20. Likewise, the legal representatives of the 5th respondent were shown as respondents 12 to 14.2. In A.S.M.P. No. 1950/2007 in A.S. No. 335/97, partial compromise was recorded on 2-11-2007 as hereunder:T...
Tag this Judgment!