Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2008]143CompCas161(AP)
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. This company petition filed by M/s. SJK Steel Plant Limited under Sections 100, 391 and 392 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act, for brevity), seeks sanction of the Court to the Scheme of Compromise/Arrangement proposed by the petitioner with their shareholders.On 16th March 1993, the petitioner company was incorporated as Sujana Metal India Limited, as per Certificate of Incorporation. Thereafter, the name of petitioner company was changed as Tadipatri Metal India Limited, which was again changed as SJK Steel Corporation Limited, and again as SJK Steel Plant Limited (the present name of the company). The present authorized share capital of the petitioner is at Rs. 1000,00,00,000/- (Thousand crore only) divided into 50,00,00,000 (fifty crores) equity shares of Rs. 10/- each and 5,00,00,000 preference shares of Rs. 100/- each. These are issued, subscribed and paid-up to the extent indicated in the petition. The main objects of the petitioner company are to produce, manu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(3)ALT48
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, in 1983. Its objects include generation of power using biomass. The petitioner is aggrieved by the respondents' insistence that the petitioner agree to a renegotiation of the price at which it would supply power to the 2nd respondent and by the refusal to supply 'back power' till then. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to forthwith supply back power and thereafter to purchase the power to be supplied by the petitioner 'at uniform rates that are being paid to other similarly situated companies in the State of Andhra Pradesh generating power using combustible bio-mass.'2. Since the advent of the industrial revolution, the consumption of energy has been increasing exponentially. The mainstay of the consumable energy has been coal and fossil fuels. These are fast depleting and non-renewable resources of the planet. This mismatch between the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(5)ALD730
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. First respondent filed the suit for a declaration that the sale proceedings of the land in S. Nos. 62, 63, 450, 451 and 334 and the house situated therein at Juntapally village (hereinafter referred to suit property) for recovery of arrears of the excise dues from herfatherare null and void and are not binding on her, and for a consequential injunction restraining respondents 2 to 4 and the appellant from dispossessing her from the suit property which was decreed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby the third defendant in the suit preferred this appeal. For the sake of convenience, I would hereinafter refer the parties to the appeal as they are arrayed in the trial Court.2. Plaintiff (1st respondent) instituted the suit initially against the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Collector (Excise) Hyderabad District (first defendant) and the Tahasildar Tandur (second defendant). Subsequently she filed I.A. No. 489 of 1974 to add the appellant as third d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD209; 2007(3)ALT287
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Repeated attempts by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to bring about a unified cadre of teachers in government, mandal parishad and zilla parishad schools have met with little success. The last such effort, prior to Act 27 of 2005, which met its Waterloo was when the Rules, in G.O.Ms. No. 538 dated 20-11-1998, were declared ultravires the Presidential Order and were quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in M. Kesavulu v. State of A.P. : 2003(6)ALD522 Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench in M. Kesavulu', the A.P. United Teachers Federation filed S.L.P. Nos. 7496-7510 of 2005 and the Supreme Court, by order dated 25-10-2004, stayed the contempt proceedings initiated pursuant to the order of the Division Bench. The State of A.P. also preferred S.L.P. Nos. 22597-22612 22597-22612 of 2004 and, while granting stay of the contempt proceedings, these S.L.Ps. were directed to be tagged along with S.L.P. Nos. 7496-7510 of 2004. All the S.L.Ps. are stil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALT263
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. By this order, we are disposing of the writ appeals filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and its functionaries, Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission (for short, 'the State Commission') and some private individuals against order dated 20-6-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10965 of 2006 - N. Sekhar v. The Government of A.P. and Ors. and batch whereby he quashed notification dated 10-6-2006 issued by the State Commission under Article 243K of the Constitution of India read with Section 201 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the 1994 Act') and Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2006 for election of the members of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituencies (ZPTCs) and Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies (MPTCs) except those specified in the notification, as also electoral lists prepared in furtherance of that notification. Simultaneously, we are disposing of the writ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD642
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, in O.A.Nos. 5698 and 5904 of 1999 dated 14.02.2000, W.P. Nos. 16842 of 2000 and 8551 of 2001 are filed by the Section Officers of different departments of the Government of A.P. W.P. No. 14651 of 2000 is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal in these O.As. In the aforesaid two O.As, the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 368 General Administration (Ser.B) Department dated 18.8.1999, and G.O.Ms. No. 397, General Administration (Ser.V) Department dated 20.9.1999, were under challenge, by the Private Secretaries of the Secretaries to the Government, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The dispute, between the Section Officers and the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the Government, revolves around the criteria prescribed and the restrictions imposed for promotion to the posts of Assistant Secretaries to the G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD409
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. Whether in exercise of the power conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can, notwithstanding the bar contained in Article 243O of the Constitution, entertain challenge to the reservation of the offices of Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats in Mangapet Mandal, Warangal District in favour of the members of Scheduled Tribe and pass an order which will have the effect of stultifying the process of election, is the question which arises for determination in this petition filed by Shri Eppala China Venkateswarlu and 41 others for quashing order dated 24-6-2006 issued by Deputy District Election Authority and Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu, Warangal District (respondent No. 4).2. The petitioners are residents of various villages of Mangapet Mandal. All of them are non-tribals. They are enrolled as voters in the electoral rolls prepared under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the 1994 Act') read w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD478
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel representing the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and also the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj.2. This matter was adjourned to this day, since the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj requested time to get instructions relating to the position of the Gram Panchayats in question, till the prior elections.3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj had stated before this Court that in the prior elections, the general rules relating to the reservations alone were made applicable and in view of the fact that the District Collector had issued a clarification, which is placed before this Court at present, since these are schedule areas, all these offices are reserved to the Scheduled Tribe. The proceedings are also placed before this Court.4. Sri Y.S. Sai Vara Prasad, learned Counsel representing the petitioners would submit that the Gram Panchayats in question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(3)ALD304
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Four, erstwhile Junior Assistants (Purchase), question the action of the A.P.S.R.T.C, in notifying them in the cadre of Junior Assistants (Material), as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and seek a direction that they be placed in the seniority list of Junior Assistant (Purchase), pursuant to the conversion order dated 9.11.1989, with all consequential benefits. 2. Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the 1st petitioner was appointed as a conductor on 9.3.1978, the second petitioner was appointed as comptist on 17.5.1978 and the 3rd and 4th petitioners were appointed as conductors on 13.2.1981 and 26.8.1985 respectively. All the four petitioners were selected, appointed by transfer as Junior Assistants and allotted to the personnel department. The 1st petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 29.8.1986, the 2nd petitioner on 26.5.1985 and 3rd and 4th petitioners on 1.9.1987 and 5.8.1987 respectively. The petitioners submitted a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD145
C.V. Ramulu, J.1. The only substantial question of law that falls for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the appellate Court was justified in refusing to consider the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 636, General Administration (Accommodation-A) Department, dated 29-12-1983 on the premise that the said issue has already been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in M. Sreeramulu v. Tahera Yousuf Kadri : 2000(3)ALD173 (FB), and in not examining the validity of the said G.O. in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra : AIR1998SC602 .2. A few facts, which are relevant, may be noticed as under:3. The appellant is the defendant/ tenant. Respondent No. 1/landlord filed a suit in O.S. No. 3756 of 1997 on the file of the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property, for arrears of rent and for future mesne profits. It was the case respondent-plainti...
Tag this Judgment!