Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-16-2016
..... 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
Decided on : Mar-08-2016
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
Decided on : Jan-29-2016
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
Decided on : Jan-07-2016
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
Decided on : Feb-29-2016
Common Order: 1. Both the writ petitions are filed by same petitioners against the same respondents. While in WP.No.36838 of 2014, the summons issued by the first respondent to the second petitioner is questioned, in WP.No.31143 of 2015, the further steps initiated by the first respondent pursuant to the summons served on the second petitioner are questioned. 2. The material averments in the affidavit of the petitioners in nutshell are as follows: WP.No.36838 of 2014: (a) The first petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and the second petitioner is its Managing Director. Petitioners state that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a charge sheet before the Special Court for CBI Cases, City Criminal Court, Nampally against various accused and petitioners 1 and 2 are shown as accused 3 to 12 respectively. The Special Court has already taken cognizance of the offences against all the accused on 13.05.2013. Petitioners deny the charge sheet framed against them...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-19-2016
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.2268 of 2003 on the file of the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by name G.Narayana Reddy filed against the defendant, P.Narayana Reddy, (for more convenience hereafter being referred plaintiff-appellant as G and defendant-respondent as P and for more clarity, sister of G was given in marriage to P, both were originally staying at Hyderabad and now both at abroad) for declaration that plaintiff is lawful owner of the plaint schedule property of 401 square yards in S.No.300, house bearing No.2-3-703/2 of Amberpet, Hyderabad; within the boundaries described of South and East-House Nos.2-3-703/3/A and 1 respectively and North and West “road; for order restoring possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and for such other reliefs, impugning the dismissal decree and judgment dated 22.03.2005, filed the present appeal. 2. The contentions in the grounds of appeal are that the decree and jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-04-2016
Common Judgment: (Ramesh Ranganathan, J.) CCCA No.104 of 2002 has been filed by the A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Limited against the judgment and decree passed by the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. No.496 of 1994 dated 22.02.2002. The appellant herein is the defendant in O.S.No.496 of 1994 filed by M/s. Pottem Brothers, Hyderabad seeking payment of Rs.39,49,657.23, future interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation, and the costs of the suit. C.C.C.A.No.138 of 2003 is filed by the Plaintiff in O.S.No.496 of 1994 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed therein to the extent the Court below deducted an additional sum of Rs.30/- per metric tonne as expenditure incurred by the plaintiff for excavating the ore from the mine. Parties in these two appeals shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.496 of 1994. In the plaint filed in O.S. No.496 of 1994, the plaintiff stated that an agreement was executed on...
Tag this Judgment!