Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-30-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD137; 2007(4)ALT348; AIR2007NOC2064(FB)(AP)
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. On behalf of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Dr. Justice G. Yethirajulu, the Hon'ble Justice G. Bhavani Prasad and himself).Issue under reference:Whether Section 32(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act') as brought into force by Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act') has effect on the cases pending on the date of its coming into force is the question referred for the consideration of the Larger Bench. The Background Facts:2. Section 32(b) of the Act, which exempted buildings constructed on or after 26-8-1957, was held unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court in Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1984 SC 121. In order to fill up the void created by the said judgment with regard to provision for exemption of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-31-2007
Reported in : AIR2008AP23; AIR2008Bom23(FB)
H.L. Gokhale, Acting C.J.1. Writ Petition No. 721 of 2006 is filed by a teacher working in a primary school run by the Cantonment Board at Ahmednagar. The respondent No. 3 to the said writ petition is another teacher working in the said school and claims to be senior to the petitioner. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Mistress by the order dated 17-2-2005 issued by the Cantonment Board. That order was challenged by respondent No. 3 by filing Appeal No. 20 of 2005 before the School Tribunal at Solapur, under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 (for short, ''MEPS Act'). The School Tribunal allowed that appeal by its judgment and order dated 6-1-2006 and set aside the order promoting the petitioner. This petition is filed to challenge the said order of the School Tribunal.2. The connected Writ Petition No. 3403 of 2006 is filed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, Ahmednagar, to challenge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : May-01-2007
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD165
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector, Hyderabad and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Khairatabad Mandal (MRO), to remove the board erected in/near petitioner's premises bearing House No. 8-3-937, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad.2. The facts and circumstances leading to filing of this writ petition in brief are as follows. The property admeasuring 1277 Sq.yards in premises No. 8-3-937 with compound wall is owned by Md. Ibrahim, the grandfather of petitioner. The tax is also being paid to Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) in his name. Sometime in 1950, the premises was leased out to Department of Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh for running a primary school. The rents were paid to the petitioner. In 1980, petitioner filed a rent control case being R.C. No. 180 of 1980 on the file of the Court of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for eviction. By an order dated 6.5.1981, learned Rent Con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-06-2007
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
Decided on : Oct-03-2007
Reported in : 2008(3)ALD39; 2008(4)ALT567
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court on 24.8.1998 made the following order:Admit, in view of the substantial questions of law raised in ground No. 11-A of the Memorandum of grounds of appeal are as hereunder:(A) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court is valid in law, since the oral and documentary evidence of the parties is not considered and discussed?(B) Whether the sales in favour of the appellants by the respondent No. 1 are illegal and invalid for want of proof of family necessity ?(C) When the sales are by the kartha and the father, whether non-proof of family necessity is sufficient to decree the suit without proof of immoral purposes by the father ?(D) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in finding that the sales are not properly supported by sale consideration ?2. Sri Mahipati Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellants-defendants 2 to 7 had pointed out the substantial questions of law and would maintain that the findings recorded by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-20-2007
Reported in : AIR2008AP123; 2008(4)ALD160; 2008(2)ALT248
ORDERG.V. Seethapathy, J.1. These civil revision petitions are filed seeking to assail the order dated 08-06-2007 in I.A. No. 121 of 2007 in O.P. No. 1630 of 2003 and batch, on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said petitions filed by the petitioners herein under Order XIV Rule 2 C.P.C., read with Section 19 of the Mirco, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, (Central Act 27 of 2006)(for short 'the New Act'), praying to decide the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the original petitions without deposit of 75% of the awarded amount, were dismissed.2. As this batch of civil revision petitions involve common questions of fact and law and have arisen out of the impugned common order, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.3. The petitioners herein entered into certain contracts with the first respondent for supply of conductors, cables/wires of varying quantit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-21-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD694
D. Appa Rao, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Defendants 1, 2 and 6 against granting of a Preliminary Decree for partition in the suit filed in O.S. No. 7 of 1996, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram.2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that she is the daughter of the 1st defendant. D2 to D5 are her sisters. Her marriage was performed on 11.5.1986. The marriage of 5th defendant was performed subsequently. The marriages of D2 and D3 were performed about 20 years ago. D2 and D4 were given substantial properties from out of the joint family properties and therefore, they were not entitled to any share. She is having 1/3rd share along with D1 and D5. During the pendency of the suit, D1 said to have executed a settlement deed dated 9.3.1996, and a registered Will dated 26.5.1993, in respect of the joint family properties. They are not valid. D6 claims that he is the adopted son of D1. It is not true. This plea was put up to deny her share. She gave a lawye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-17-2007
Reported in : 2007(3)ALD173; 2007(2)ALT386; [2007(114)FLR253]
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. These petitions filed by the Municipal Corporation of Kurnool for quashing order dated 4-5-2005 passed by Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tridunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.A. No. 413 of 2003 (I.D.No.77 of 2003) and batch have been listed before the Division Bench for determination of the following question of law:Whether Rule 11(6) and Form K-4 of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 are mandatory or directory?The background facts:2. In the year 1989, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, after noticing that the practice of engaging daily wage employees and demand for regularisation of such employees has been resulting in over-staffing in the local bodies, issued Memo No. 102191 / ESTT/IV/88-1 dated 9-1-1989, whereby the Gram Panchayats were permitted to get the work relating to sweeping of roads, cleaning of side drains, maintenance of water supply, electricity and scavenging done on contract basis by meeting the expenditure from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-26-2007
Reported in : 2008(3)ALT48
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, in 1983. Its objects include generation of power using biomass. The petitioner is aggrieved by the respondents' insistence that the petitioner agree to a renegotiation of the price at which it would supply power to the 2nd respondent and by the refusal to supply 'back power' till then. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to forthwith supply back power and thereafter to purchase the power to be supplied by the petitioner 'at uniform rates that are being paid to other similarly situated companies in the State of Andhra Pradesh generating power using combustible bio-mass.'2. Since the advent of the industrial revolution, the consumption of energy has been increasing exponentially. The mainstay of the consumable energy has been coal and fossil fuels. These are fast depleting and non-renewable resources of the planet. This mismatch between the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-19-2007
Reported in : 2007(2)ALT346; 2007CriLJ2031
J. Chelameswar, J.1. This writ petition is filed by five petitioners with the prayer as follows:For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ, order or direction more in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the petitioners before this Hon'ble Court and set them at liberty and pass such other order or orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.2. There are fifteen respondents who are officers of the State of Andhra Pradesh in the Police Department. The 1st petitioner claims to be the General Secretary of a political party known as CPI (ML) Janashakti party. The others are the followers of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the natives of Andhra Pradesh, 4th and 5th petitioners are claimed to be the residents of Mumbai and Ranipur in Uttar Pradesh respectively. Admittedly all the...
Tag this Judgment!