Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1988AP215
ORDER1. This review petition raises two questions of law :1. Whether a letters patent appeal lay to a Division Bench against an appellate order of single Judge in an appeal under O. 43, R.1, C.P.C. read with S. 104(1), C.P.C. and whether S. 104(2) was a bar to the maintainability of a Letters patent appeal under cl.15 of the Letters Patent and consequently whether this review petition is not maintainable? 2. Whether in the case of a sale or a share in the hypotheca by some of the co- mortgagors to the usufructuary mortgagee, S. 60 of the T.P. Act requires the non- alienating co-mortgagor to sue for redemption of his own share and whether, if the sale in favour of the mortgagee is pending the suit filed for redemption and possession of the whole Property, S. 52 of the T.P. Act requires the mortgagee to first surrender possession of the entire property and then sue for partition and possession.? 2. I shall initially deal with the first question mentioned above and 1 shall deal with the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP228
Kumarayya, J.1. The office has raised an objection as regards the maintainability of this L.P.A. for want of leave of the Court as contemplated by Clause 15 of the Letters Patent on the ground that the order appealed against was passed in C.M. Ps. in Second Appeal and, therefore, the question whether the party has an unqualified statutory right of appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act was therefore of little moment. It would appear from the facts of the case that in the course of Second Appeal 203 of 1962, the parties agreed that the subject matter of dispute may be referred to the Arbitrators. At their request this Court directed the dispute to be submitted to the Arbitrators for decision. The Arbitrator passed an award and remitted the same to the Court. The appellant herein raised objection thereto and requested the Court to set aside the award. The Court heard the arguments and finally passed an order refusing to set aside the award and directed that a decree be drawn in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(5)ALD339; 2001(5)ALT723
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh in Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department is the appellant in this letters patent appeal, filed against the judgment of the teamed single Judge dated 31-7-2000 in Writ Petition No. 14245 of 2001. The parlies herein shall be referred to by their status in the writ petition.2. The petitioner (1st respondent herein) filed the above-mentioned writ petition praying for a declaration that the action of the authorities in not conducting elections to Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, is arbitrary, illegal, violative of fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution and contrary to the provisions contained in Part IX-A of the Constitution. The petitioner also prayed for a consequential direction to the respondents, namely the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the State Election Commission (for short 'the SEC') to take immediate steps for the conduct of elections to the 2nd res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP353
Seshachalapati, J. 1. This revision petition originally was heard by our learned Brother, Venkatesam, J. The scope and effect of Section 89 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') fell to be decided by him. In the arguments addressed before the learned Judge, various decisions of this Court were cited including two unreported Bench decisions, viz., G. Veera Ready v. B. Venkayya, C.M.P. No. 5309 of 1960 in C.R.P. No. 2089 of 1957 (A.P.) and T. Shankaraiah v. Laxmamma, C.R.P. No. 1911 of 1963 (A.P.). The first-decision was not brought to the notice of the Bench that decided the second case and also certain earlier decisions were pot brought to the notice of the Bench that decided the first case. The learned Judge though) that there was a conflict between the two unreported Bench decisions relating, to a matter of procedure and referred the revision petition to a Full Bench for disposal. 2. The facts leadin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(1)ALT715; 2008(2)CTLJ207(AP)
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. The action of respondent No. 2 in rejecting the technical bids of the petitioner pertaining to the works covered by two tender notifications (for short 'NITs') concerning the works of widening of High Level Bridge to 8 lane carriage way across Musi river at KM 2/0 to 2/2 of Inner Ring Road (Nagole Bridge) including approaches right-side and left-side in Ranga Reddy district is questioned in this writ petition.2. The petitioner is a registered Special Class Contractor and he is admittedly eligible to file his tenders in respect of the works in question. The High Level Bridge as described above is divided into two works and NITs were issued separately for the work of widening of bridge on right-side (for short 'right-side work') vide Tender No.38539/E-In-C(R&B;)/EE(TEC)/TA12/AEE5/07/01 dated 06.10.2007 for an estimated contracted value of Rs. 2,66,57,986/-and for the work of widening of bridge on left-side (for short 'leftside work') vide Tender No. 38539/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)ALT725; 2002CriLJ4009
1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying 'to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring Section 13(1) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 16, 21, proviso to Article 309, Article 311 and also Article 300A of the Constitution of India and also declare Cl. 4 (d) of Memo No.700/SC/D/88-4 dated 13-2-1989 issued by the 2nd respondent herein as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional, if necessary by declaring Sections 5, 6, 8, 12, 18 and 36 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and violating the basic structure and issue the consequential direction to the respondents to drop all proceedings pursuant to the F.I.R. No.10/RC-NLR/95, dated 19-09-1995 initiated by the respondents herein bef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1955AP142
Bhimasankaram, J.(1) These two appeals under the Letters Patent are against the Order of a single Judge of the Madras High Court declining to grant a temporary injunction against the respondents restraining them from taking possession of the lands in dispute pending the disposal of A. S. Nos. 1013 and 1015 of 1953.(2) The learned Judge took the view that, in the circumstances of these cases, no injunction could be asked for. Before we go into the question of law, it is desirable to state breifly the facts leading up to the present appeals.(3) A. S. Nos. 1013 and 1015 of 1953 are appeals against the common judgment in O. S. Nos 97 and 99 of 1952 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Elurn. The suits were instituted by the appellant in these appeals for a declaration of his right of occupancy in the lands in dispute in each of the suits. The appellant is the arechaka of three temples, Sri Venugopalaswamy Varu, Sri Sitharamaswamy Vary and Sri Kesavaswami Varu in the village of D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1981AP182
Madhava Reddy, J.1. These two writ appeals are directed against the order of our learned brother P.A. Choudary, J. directing the District Munsif, Guntur -'to take evidence by summoning all witnesses and documents which he might consider necessary as to who are all the persons who have been rendered landless or occupationless by reason of the acquisition of the lands at Pedakakani by the Central Warehousing Corporation and of them who are the members of the petitioner-society and who are the members of the 3rd respondent-society and who are interested and who are not interested in working for the Corporation.'Sri Malleswara Swamy Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited, Petiakakani has filed a writ petition for the issue of a writ of prohibition or an appropriate order prohibiting the Central Warehousing Corporation from granting the contract or entrusting the work of handling the material at the godowns and transporting the same from the railhead to any other society or individual ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1997]105STC421(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. A Common question is argued in the writ petition as well as in the tax revision cases, therefore they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners in the writ petition seek a declaration that section 2(n) read with explanation IV, sections 5 and 5-E of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the APGST Act') are ultra vires the Constitution of India and the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature in so far as they seek to levy tax on the amounts received on the transfer of the right to use the software and the consequential relief restraining the respondents from taking any steps in furtherance of the impugned provision and also directing the respondents to withdraw the levy among other consequential reliefs. 3. There are two petitioners in the writ petition. The first petitioner is an association of 238 software and service companies, the list of which is enclosed to the writ petition, and the second...
Tag this Judgment!