Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-01-2015
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
Decided on : Dec-04-2015
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
Decided on : Sep-29-2015
Common Order: (Ramesh Ranganathan, J.) Personal liberty is of the widest amplitude covering a variety of rights. Its deprivation shall only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law conformable to the mandate of the Supreme Law, the Constitution, more particularly to Article 21 thereof. (N. Sengodan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 8 SCC 664); Bhut Nath Mete vs. State of W.B., (1974) 1 SCC 645). Of all fundamental rights, conceded to the citizens under the Constitution, the right of personal liberty is the most cherished. A person is not to be deprived of this right except in accordance with the procedure laid down by law even if he be a man of the most desparate character. (Pilli Yeteswari v. Govt. of A.P (1996(4) ALT 485 = (1997)1 ALT(Cri) 184). Preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and such meagre safeguards as the Constitution has provided, against the improper exercise of the power, must be jealously watched and enforced by the Court. (Ram Krishan Bh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-14-2015
Common Order: Ramesh Ranganathan, J. 1. M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd, Hyderabad filed W.P. Nos.23034 and 22960 of 2007, W.P. No.8122 and 9016 of 2008, W.P. Nos.8006 and 15121 of 2009, W.P. No.8955 of 2010, W.P. Nos.10711 and 23689 of 2011, W.P. No.6834 of 2012, W.P. No.39431 of 2013 and W.P. No.14457 of 2014. Alstom Projects India Ltd filed W.P. Nos.4763 and 12745 of 2009, and W.P. No.26994 of 2011. M/s. Siemens Ltd, Hyderabad filed W.P. Nos.16857, 16909 and 16945 of 2009, W.P. No. 25776 of 2010, W.P. No.8664 of 2013 and W.P. No.14192 of 2014. BGR Energy Systems Ltd, Nellore filed W.P. No.19516 of 2009. All the petitioners have executed turnkey projects for different customers. They claimed that the goods supplied by them, for being used in the turnkey projects, were subsequent sales exempt from tax under Section 6(2) of the CST Act, import sales under Section 5(2) of the CST Act, and the respondents lacked jurisdiction to subject these transactions to tax under the AP VAT Act treating t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-06-2015
Ramesh Ranganathan, J. A Writ of Habeas Corpus, is sought for the detenu Sri Nimma Mahesh @ Potti Mahesh S/o. Nimma Narayana now detained in Central Prison, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, to be produced before this Court, and for his being released forthwith after declaring his detention as illegal and unconstitutional. The facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that Sri N. Mahesh was detained in preventive custody by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor, by proceedings dated 09.02.2015, on the ground that he was a goonda within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986); his activities were dangerous to forest wealth, and prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; and it was necessary to prevent him from further indulging in such type of activities. The order of detention was approved by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.488...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-22-2015
1. The present writ petition questions the notice dated 31.07.2015 issued by the fourth respondent under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short the Act'). 2. A contention is raised by the petitioners with regard to the applicability of the Act for their land, which is stated to be covered by approved layout with a compound wall with structures and which is not in the nature of water body, road etc. Petitioners also assert ownership and possession for over 100 years and rely upon grant of layout by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board way back in 2008 and also on the no objection certificates issued by the Revenue and Military authorities. Petitioners also contend that merely because the State thinks and treats the aforesaid land as State Government land, merely based upon certain entries in the GLR records and the Defence Estate Officer, cannot empower the State Government to apply the provisions of the Act to claim the land. It is stated that the remedy under the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-22-2015
Common Order: These two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, as these two writ petitions involve common point of law. The petitioners are graduates in medicine and students of post graduation who are pursuing the course of MD General Medicine in the third respondent college. The said course is of three years duration. The first respondent University conducted the examination for P.G Degree theory and practical on 21.04.2015 and 13.05.2015 respectively. The results of the examinations were declared on 23.06.2015 and the petitioners were stated to have secured the following marks. Sl. No.Name of the CandidateMarks obtained (Theory)Marks obtained (Practical)1Kanigalpula S.P. Manjeera (Petitioner in WP. No.22858/2015)250/400127/3002Kranthi Kumar (Petitioner in WP. No.23391/2015)224/400127/300 The required minimum marks for theory examination is 200 whereas for p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-11-2015
Common Judgment: (Dilip B. Bhosale, ACJ.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent of learned counsel heard forthwith. 2. Principally, two prayers have been made in these petitions, first, to declare that Sections 8, 10, 11 and 13 of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short the Amendment Act') notified in the extraordinary gazette dated 27.03.2015 and brought into effect on 12.01.2015, are unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 39, 300(A) and 301 of the Constitution of India, and second, a direction to the respondents to complete processing of their applications for prospecting licences made in accordance with the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short the Principal Act') as available prior to the date of the Amendment Act came into effect. 3. The petitioners in these petitions had applied for prospecting licence-cum-mining lease under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-07-2015
1. Heard Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy and Ms.Sindoora V.N.L., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Sairama Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The 2nd respondent appears to have expired but his presence is not necessary to decide the Revision Petition. THE BRIEF FACTS: 2. This Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dt.10-08-2-010 in E.P.No.21 of 2008 in O.S.No.12 of 1999 of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid. 3. The petitioner herein is Judgment Debtor No.1. 4. The above suit had been filed by 1st respondent Bank against him and the 2nd respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.95,092-78 ps being the principal and interest due on a mortgage bond dt.18-07-1986 executed by then in its favour for Rs.72,450/- payable with interest @ 16.5% per annum with half yearly rests with penal interest at 2% and costs. 5. Preliminary decree in the said suit was passed on 16-12-1994 by the Subordinate Judge, Nuzvid. 6. The preliminary decree declared that the amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-17-2015
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!