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
..... securing the sanctity and probity of an arbitration proceeding; if the circumstances envisaged in section 12(3) of the act exist, a party failing to raise a challenge based thereon under section 13(2), cannot be debarred from availing a remedy otherwise available to him under the act; failure of such a party to file an application under section 13(2), on the grounds under section 12(3) of the act, would not act as an estoppel against him; the grounds specified in section ..... ordinary course of human conduct has to be taken into consideration. (a.k. kraipak v. union of india (air 1970 sc 150); dr.tera chinnapa reddy v. the govt. of a.p. (2014(2) alt (crl.) 299 (ap). a ..... property company (1898) 2 ch 28); eastman photographic material company v. comptroller general of patents, designs and trade marks (1898) ac 571); national insurance co. ltd. v. baljit kaur ( ..... parties; 39 sittings have taken place till date, which were mostly attended by the petitioners with their counsel; the matter is now coming up for marking of documents on behalf of respondents 1 to 5; under section 6(1) of the act, the ..... costly arbitration, hold that the mandate of the arbitrator stands terminated; and the power under section 14 should be exercised sparingly, and only when a clear case of bias is made out or else it should leave this question to be adjudicated at the stage of section 34. in himadri chemicals and industries ltd. (supra), the calcutta high court held that an application, under section 14 of the act .....
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 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
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
THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.13832 OF201331-12-2014 KMK Event Management Ltd.Petitioner The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes . Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sr.Dr.T.Ramesh Babu Counsel for respondent:GP for Commercial Taxes ?. Citations: 1) (2008) 12 VST3712) (2006) 145 STC913) (2004) 135 STC4804) (2011) 37 VST2265) (2011) 46 VST576) (2000) 1 SCC521= (2000) 117 STC17) 2013 (6) ALT723(D.B) 8) Judgment in WP No.4516 of 2013 dated 18.02.2013 9) Order in WPMP No.23591 of 2012 in W.P.No.18430 of 2012 dated 25.06.2012 10) AIR1973SC252411) (1997) 10 SCC29112) AIR1986SC66213) 1990(3) ALT38214) AIR1968SC647 (1968) 2 SCR15415) (1901 AC495: (1900-03) All ER Rep. 1 (HL) 16) AIR2001SC198017) (2001) 5 SCC40718) (2001).SCC67619) (2001) 8 SCC54020) AIR1987SC166821) AIR1987SC216622) (1950) 2 ALL ER2923) AIR1957Punjab 5 24) (1984) 2 ALLER125) (1979) 2 All ER d 433, (1979) 1 WLR62026) Judgment in Civil Appeal No.1421 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NOs.13418 OF2014and batch 29-10-2014 M/s.Inox Air Products Ltd.Petitioner The Assistant Commissioner (CT)-IX, Enforcement Wing, Hyderabad and otheRs.Respondents Counsel for the petitioner:Sr.Karan Talwar Counsel for respondents: Sr.P. Balaji Varma, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes HEAD NOTE: ?. Citations: 1) (2005) 139 STC504(Kerala HC DB) 2) (2010) Vol.35 VST478(Madras High Court DB) 3) (2014) NTN (Vol.54) 164 = (2014) VIL38ALH- (judgment in Writ Tax No.1098 of 2007 dated 11.02.2014 4) AIR1963SC6655) (2004) 137 STC686) (2011) 45 VST477) (2003) 7 SCC5178) (2008) 14 SCC1719) (1972) 1 W.L.R.241 (H.L) 10) (1997) 105 STC31811) AIR1989SC62212) AIR1980SC61113) (2004) 6 SCC28114) (1990) 79 STC351THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION Nos.13418 & 16782 Of 2014 Common Order: (per Honble Sr.Justice Ramesh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.9784 OF201309-09-2014 Venkatrayapuram Industrial Area Township rep., by its Member and Temporary Chairman Sr.K. Rama Seshayya and others . Petitioners Government of A.P.rep., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department and otheRs.Respondents Counsel for the petitioneRs.Sr.C.V.Mohan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sr.M.R.K.Chakravarthy, Learned Counsel Counsel for respondents: Learned Special Government Pleader for Learned Advocate General; Sr.B.D.Maheswara Reddy; Sr.K. Chidambaram and Sr.Dasari SVversus Prasad. HEAD NOTE: ?.Citations: 1) (2001) 2 SCC1602) (1981) 1 SCC5683) AIR1962SC10444) (2003) 6 SCC2305) (2005) 10 SCC4956) AIR1997SC1125= (1997) 3 SCC2617) AIR1999SC17238) 1995 Suppl (3) SCC6439) (1999) 6 SCC46410) (1999) 6 SCC66711) (1982) 3 SCC235 1982 SCC (L&S) 275 12) 2005(4) Laws (APHC) 106 13) (2002) 1 SCC3314) (1992) 4 SCC30515) (1988) 4 SCC22616) (2000) 7 SCC55217) ...
Tag this Judgment!