Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: (Ramesh Ranganathan, J.) The relief sought for in these Writ Petitions is to declare the action of the respondents in not clearing the jewellery imported with nil duty under the Preferential Tariff Agreement, in issuing communication dated 09.10.2015 and 13.10.2015 calling upon the petitioners to provide further information, not contemplated under the Regulations, as a pre-condition for clearing the goods imported by the petitioner, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to the provisions of Customs Act, Regulations and the Preferential Tariff Agreement. A consequential direction is sought to direct the respondents to clear the goods forthwith. By way of an amendment, to the prayer in the Writ Petitions, an additional relief is sought to declare the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (the 3rd respondent) in issuing Orders in original dated 30.10.2015 denying preferential rate of duty, claimed by the petitioners, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, and in violation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.2268 of 2003 on the file of the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by name G.Narayana Reddy filed against the defendant, P.Narayana Reddy, (for more convenience hereafter being referred plaintiff-appellant as G and defendant-respondent as P and for more clarity, sister of G was given in marriage to P, both were originally staying at Hyderabad and now both at abroad) for declaration that plaintiff is lawful owner of the plaint schedule property of 401 square yards in S.No.300, house bearing No.2-3-703/2 of Amberpet, Hyderabad; within the boundaries described of South and East-House Nos.2-3-703/3/A and 1 respectively and North and West “road; for order restoring possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and for such other reliefs, impugning the dismissal decree and judgment dated 22.03.2005, filed the present appeal. 2. The contentions in the grounds of appeal are that the decree and jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
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!