Court : Andhra Pradesh
Sanjay Kumar, J. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No.235 of 2012 whereby, the said petition filed for winding up of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (for brevity, the APIIC ), was admitted and advertisement thereof was permitted to be carried out in the event the APIIC failed to deposit the sum of Rs.8,18,36,584/- to the credit of the company petition within a time frame. Aggrieved thereby, the APIIC preferred this appeal. By order dated 06.11.2014, the appeal was admitted and interim stay of operation of the order under appeal was granted for a period of six weeks. The said stay was extended until further orders on 18.12.2014. Application No.7 of 2015 was filed by the respondent, the petitioner in C.P.No.235 of 2012, to vacate the interim order dated 06.11.2014. Thereupon, this Court was informed on 22.06.2015 that the APIIC was attem...
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!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of mining lime stone, manufacture and sale of cement. The workman/4th respondent (for short workman) in the writ petition was working in Mines Department. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the allegation of unauthorized absence, which ultimately resulted in dismissal from service by order dated 05.12.2011. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, workman raised industrial dispute and filed claim statement under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act) (state amendment) in the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Anantapur (for short the Tribunal'). The award was made on 02.05.2014 setting aside the order of dismissal from service. The petitioner was directed to reinstate the employee into service with continuity of service and all attendant benefits. However, the Tribunal denied back wages. Challenging the said award this w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Judgment: 1. The respective sole defendants are the appellants herein and the respective self-same sole plaintiffs in both the matters are the respondents. Both the suits in O.S. No.1960 of 1988 and 1959 of 1988 are filed by the self-same plaintiff Saleh against the respective defendants Dhanraj and Vijenderkumar Kedia. The trial Court on separate trial decreed both the suits for the relief of specific performance of the contract for sale respectively, to execute and register sale deeds on receiving balance sale consideration and to deliver possession and with costs. 2. The contentions in the grounds of appeal common almost in both the appeals of the respective suits are that the decree and judgment respectively of the trial Court supra are contrary to law, unlawful and against probabilities of the case, perverse and misconceived against the canons of justice. 3. It is specifically contended by the defendant-appellant respectively supra that the trial Court ought to have seen th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: It is apropos to begin this judgment by noting Mr. Henry Viscards Jr., American activist who fought for the rights of disabled formula propounded for belief for the disabled: ''I seek opportunity, not security. I will not trade my dignity for a handout. It is my heritage to think and act for myself.'' 1. It is apposite to note the observations of Honble Justice S.B. Sinha in Justice J.K. Mathur Memorial Lecturer (Published in (2005 ) 3 SCC J-1): The mindset of people towards PWDs which needs to be changed . In the words of Henry Viscards Jr.,. there are no disabled people. There is nothing which can substitute for human rights, no honours, no fame, no pension, no subsidy, can replace a wish to work with dignity in free and open competition with all. (emphasis supplied). 2. In his conclusive remarks, Justice Sinha observed, Legal predications, judicial pronouncements and constitutional preferences only elucidate the imperative, for laws alone cannot guarantee integration. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. This writ petition for Habeas Corpus was moved by the wife of the detenue challenging the correctness of the orders passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Warangal on 30.06.2015 for the preventive detention of Sri Chittikesi Sadashivudu S/o. Punnam Chander. This order has been passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Warangal exercising the power available to her under Sub Section 2 of Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short the Act'). The District Magistrate for arriving at subjective satisfaction has relied upon seven grounds. The first of them relates to an incident which took place on 24.02.2011 where the raid conducted yielded to 29 plastic bags each containing about 24 kgs of black jaggery and 1 kgs of alum. Thus, this material is allegedly used for preparation of illicitly distilled liquor. Thus, a ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Judgment:(R. Subhash Reddy, J.) 1. All these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, aggrieved by the docket order, dated 27.10.2015, passed by the 24th Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in Arbitration O.P.No.2123 of 2015. As parties in these appeals are common and also common issue arises for consideration, all these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant is a Company engaged in the business of supply and erection of bulk handling equipments and caters to the energy and industrial sectors including ports, power plants, thermal plants etc. and is specialized in the management of such projects. The respondent is also a Company engaged in the business of constructing, erecting, building, paving, excavating, repairing, renovating etc. works in connection with the projects such as railways, tramways, docks, ports etc. The respondent Company is awar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. In the present writ petition, challenge is to the Memorandum No.1697/SC-A/A2/2008-4 dated 22.08.2011 issued by the first respondent State Government. By virtue of the said memorandum, the State Government permitted the Anti-Corruption Bureau to file charge-sheet against the petitioner in the Court of law and the petitioner is also praying for quashment of the proceedings in CC No.16 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases.2. According to the petitioner, he joined in the State Police Department as a Sub-Inspector on 20.09.1978 and got promotion as Inspector of Police on 08.02.1989 and as a Deputy Superintendent of Police on 09.12.2005. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, C.I.U, Hyderabad registered Cr.No.33/ACB/CIU-HYD/2008 against the petitioner and another under Sections 7, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 34 I.P.C. On the representation made by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: (A. Shankar Narayana, J.) 1. Since point of law is common in all these revisions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Aggrieved of the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge of Mangalagiri, Peddapuram, Gajuwaka and Chittoor, respectively, these Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the respective judgment-debtor(s) in C.F.R. No.2546 of 2014 in E.P. No.50 of 2014, C.F.R. No.2548 of 2014 in E.P. No.42 of 2014, E.P. No.31 of 2013, E.P. No.115 of 2013 and E.P. No.61 of 2012, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC'), mainly, on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction in view of definition of Courtas envisaged under Section 2(1)(e) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act'). C.R.P. No.1340 of 2015: 3. (a) The revision petitioner herein is petitioner -judgment-debtor No.3 in C.F.R. No.2546 of 2014 in E.P. No.50 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, and respondent No.3 in A.O.P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1961 OF201516-06-2015 A.P.Arya Vysya Mahasabha rep.by its President..PETITIONER Mutyapu Sudershan and others..RESPONDENTS. Counsel For The Petitioner: M/s.K.M.Mahender Reddy Counsel For Respondents: Sr.Prabhakar Peri : >Head Note : ?. CITATIONS : 1. 2001 (5) ALD705(FB) 2. 2003 (3) ALD1533. AIR2004Andhra Pradesh 310 4. 2002 (6) ALT2685. (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 774 6. (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 509 7. (1978) 2 S.C.R.272 8. AIR1985SC12339. 1996 AIR159510. 2008 (1) ALT3611. AIR2012SC172712. 2014 (2) ALD101HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1961 of 2015 ORDER: The respondent No.2 in I.A.No.17 of 2015 in E.O.P.No.1 of 2015 on the file of Vacation Civil Judge (District Judge).Nizamabad preferred this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India (Constitution) challenging the ex parte ad-interim injunction dated 12-05-2015 by the Vacation Civil Judge (District Judge).Nizamabad....
Tag this Judgment!