Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-22-2005
Reported in : 2006(1)ALT589; [2007]7SCL548(AP)
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The petitioner company seeks sanction of the scheme of arrangement under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act.2. M/s. Spartek Ceramices India Limited, the petitioner company was incorporated on 09-03-1983 with its Registered Office at Mittapalem in Chittoor District, with the object of carrying on the business of ceramic and stoneware glazed and unglazed tiles; ceramic electronic components and powerline insulators, spark plug and industrial ceramic components; and to deal in frits and glazes, colour stains, chinaware and glassware articles of industrial and domestic application. The authorized, issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the company as on 31-03-2003 was Rs. 17,30,11,100/-. The audited balance sheet of the company as on 31 -03-2003 has been annexed to the petition. The company is also a registered company having its stock listed in three stock exchanges at Mumbai, Madras and Hyderabad. For the purpose of its business, the petitioner comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-28-2005
Reported in : 2006(2)ALD734; 2006(3)ALT205
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. In execution of the decree obtained by the revision-petitioner against the 1st respondent, he filed a petition to attach the retrial benefits to be credited to Account No. 45103 of Andhra Bank as per the despatch order of the District Treasury Officer, Ongole, which was dismissed by the order under revision.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner is that since 1st respondent is not a Government Servant, and is an employee in a private college, he cannot be invoking Section 60 C.P.C. claim exemption from attachment of the retrial benefits, by placing strong reliance on N. Venugopala Rao v. L.I.C. of India : 1995(2)ALT70 and Md. Sabeer Ali v. Vandana Chit Funds : 2000(1)ALD261 .3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent is that since the retrial benefits to be received by the 1st respondent are his pension and gratuity, and since gratuity which is governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Act), is exemp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-05-2005
Reported in : 2005(4)ALD582; 2005(4)ALT327; [2005]126CompCas708(AP); [2005]63SCL339(AP)
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. Heard - Sri E. Manohar, Sri J.V. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocates, Sri D.V. Bhadram, Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, Sri Badri Premnath, Advocates for the several petitioners/appellants; learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh; Sri Nooti Ram Mohan Rao, Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, Sri K. Gopala Krishna Murthy, Advocates for the several Co-operative Banks and Sri M. Ratna Reddy, Advocate for the Union of India.2. The several writ petitions were filed at various stages of proceedings before the authorities of the Registration Department of the State. All the writ petitioners had obtained loans or Overdraft facility from the respective Co-operative Banks in sums exceeding Rupees ten lakhs each. In every instance there was a default in the repayment of the instalments or the loan amount and consequently a violation of the terms of the loan agreement. The lending Co-operative Banks had initiated proceedings for recovery of the dues under the provisions of the Andh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-26-2005
Reported in : 2005(6)ALT813; (2006)IILLJ443AP
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. Since a common issue viz., whether the Diagnostic Centres/Pathological Centres carry on 'manufacturing process' as defined under Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948 and as such they fall within the meaning of 'factory' under Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the ESI Act'), in order to cover the employees employed therein under the Employees State Insurance Scheme, has arisen for consideration in both the appeals, they are heard together and are being disposed of through a common Judgment.2. The factual backdrop of the cases relevant for the purpose of disposing these appeals is stated thus:3. The appellants are purely diagnostic laboratories, established with a view to cater the diagnostic needs of the patients and are accordingly rendering the services like X-ray, examination of blood, urine, stools for medical diagnosis etc.4. While so, on 30-7-1997 and 31-7-1997, the E.S.I. Inspector visited the appellants-establishments a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-18-2005
Reported in : 2005(6)ALD832
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. Writ Petition No. 29418 of 1997 is filed to quash the proceeding of the 3rd respondent dated 31-10-1992 confirmed, in appeal, by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 15/18.3.1993. The 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 31-10-1992, had imposed stoppage of five increments forever on the petitioner and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the punishment imposed on him was confirmed.2. In W.P. No. 28763 of 1997, the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 21-5-1997, whereby the petitioner was informed that the result of the sealed cover, containing the findings in respect of his suitability or otherwise for promotion to Officers' Cadre in JMGS-I had been annulled consequent to the punishment, of stoppage of five increments forever, imposed on him vide disciplinary authority's order dated 31-10-1992 and that the results of his promotion cannot be given effect to in terms of Clause VI of the sealed cover procedure prescribed in circular No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-27-2005
Reported in : IV(2005)ACC622; 2006ACJ1371; 2005(4)ALD725; 2005(4)ALT487
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31 -3-1997 passed in O.P. No. 257 of 1996 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the petition filed by the claimants under Section 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short Act) and awarded compensation of Rs. 9,86,799/- with interest @ 12 per cent from the date of petition till the date of realization.2. The appellants are claimants in O.P. No. 257 of 1996. They put in a claim of Rs. 15.0 lakhs as compensation for the loss of life of Ganga Rao in a road accident occurred on 22-3-1996. R-1 is driver, R-2 is owner and R-3 is the insurer of the tractor bearing No. AP 15 T 8074 involved in the accident. The appellants/claimants filed C.M.P. No. 24576 of 1999 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC whereby sought for enhancement of their claim from Rs. 15.00 lakhs to Rs. 30.00 lakhs. They ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-26-2005
Reported in : AIR2006AP173; 2006(2)ALT242
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Introductory facts: C. Pattabhirama Rao, the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No. 434/88 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam preferred this Appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit. The said Pattabhirama Rao, appellant/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,66,000/- together with subsequent interest and costs of the suit. The respondents herein, the New India Assurance Company Limited and the Syndicate Bank are shown as defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit. The relief of recovery was prayed for as against the 1st respondent herein/1st defendant in the suit. The learned Judge on appreciation of evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, D.W.1, Exs.A-1 to A-19 and Exs.B-1 to B-4 and Ex.X-1 recorded findings that even on the strength of the Surveyor's report the relief cannot be granted and even otherwise Ex.A-1 Insurance policy is only a Fire policy and not Fire-A policy and hence the New India Assurance Company Limited cannot be f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-23-2005
Reported in : II(2006)ACC692; 2005(6)ALT610; [2006(108)FLR1069]
R. Subhash Reddy, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, aggrieved by the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad, passed in W.C. Case No. 104 of 2001.2. The respondents 1 to 6 herein were the applicants before the Tribunal below, claiming compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, on account of death of one Sri Mohd. Saber. Applicant No. 1 is the wife, Applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are the children, and Applicant No. 6 is the mother, of the deceased; whereas, Opposite Party No. 1 was the owner of the lorry bearing registration No. AP.9T.8106, and also father of the deceased, and, Opposite Party No. 2 was the insurer of the said lorry. It was the case of the applicants before the Tribunal that the deceased was employed by the first Opposite Party as driver on the said vehicle and, on interveni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-06-2005
Reported in : 2005(5)ALD791; 2005(5)ALT502
V. Eswaraiah, J.1. These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the order, dated 04-05-1998, made in E.I.C.No. 27 of 1996 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman; Industrial Tribunal-1, Hyderabad.2. C.M.A. 1506 of 1998 is filed by M/s. Tata Projects Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad, the petitioner in E.I.C.No. 27 of 1996. C.M.A.No. 2115 of 1998 is filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad, the respondent in E.I.C.No. 27 of 1996.3. Insofar as granting relief against the petitioner therein, making it liable to pay the contribution from 04-01-1996 instead of 01-01-1987, C.M.A.1506 of 1998 has been filed, contending that the appellant company is neither a 'shop nor a 'factory' either within the meaning of 'shop' as per the notification of Government of A.P., or within the meaning of 'factory' as per Section 2(12) of the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-09-2005
Reported in : 2005(6)ALT642; 2006(1)ARBLR530(AP)
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 16-6-2005, passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application I.A.No. 801 of 2005 in O.P.No. 739 of 2005, filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to grant a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from recovering the alleged excess payments in respect of 28500 CDMA (FWT) sets supplied to the respondents by the petitioner-company, in pursuance of the purchase Order No. CE/PO/009/2002-2003, dated 9-9-2002, pending the final award by the Arbitral Tribunal, as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.3. It is the case of the appellant in the main O.P., that the appellant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Hyderabad; that it involved in manufacture and supply of various equipments used by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the BSNL...
Tag this Judgment!