Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents. 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondents for not conducting survey in demarcating the petitioner's land and in not considering the petitioner's representations dt.04-02-2013, 10-12-2015 and 14-12-2015. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue have placed before me order dt.14-06-2013 in W.A.No.110 of 2013 wherein a Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the Government Circular Rc.No.N2/1741/2010 dt.18-05-2010, prescribing guidelines, based on Board Standing Order No.34-A paragraph 20 and proceeding in D.O.Rc.No.N1/4296/2012 dt.22-08-2012 of the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in regard to the demarcation of survey numbers, opined that there is no bar for revenue officials to conduct survey of lands at request of private...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Judgment: (Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.) Though this Writ Appeal is directed against the interlocutory order dated 28.01.2016 passed in W.P.M.P.No. 2775 of 2016 in Writ Petition No. 2189 of 2016, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners-appellants and on behalf of Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited, Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy and Sri G. Vidya Sagar respectively would urge that since the controversy involved in the Writ Petition lies in a very narrow compass, the Writ Petition itself be decided at this stage. We have conceded to the request of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on either side because we have heard the matter at great length on merits. The combined Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited has taken out a Notification on 22.04.2013 proposing to fill-up approximately 361 vacancies of Firemen (120) and Security Guards (241) available at various units of the said Corporation. In the instant case, we are concerned w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: (Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.) These Writ Petitions can be disposed of by this common order as the respondent bank namely Bank of Baroda is common in all the cases. Further, the question that has fallen for our consideration is also identical in all these Writ Petitions. In all these cases, the securitization measures adopted by the respondent bank, in particular proposing to put the secured asset to sale is questioned. There is no dispute on the factual count that the respective writ petitioners are borrowersand they answer the said expression as defined in Section 2(1)(f) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the Act'), which has been ushered in to regulate the securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interests. The respondent bank answers the description of bank', as defined in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 2, as it is a banking company with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. In this Writ Petition two orders - both dt.09.04.2015 viz., one passed by 3rd respondent forming an opinion that there is no Managing Committee for 4th respondent Society and appointing a person in-charge to manage the affairs of said Society, and another order passed by 2nd respondent declaring that 1st petitioner ceased to be the delegate of 4th respondent-Society in the 5th respondent-Financing Bank and Chairman of 5th respondent-Bank and consequently nominating the Vice-Chairman of 5th respondent-Bank as the Chairman of the said bank, are questioned. THE BACKGROUND OF THE LITIGATION 2. The petitioner nos.1 to 6 are Members of the Managing Committee of 4th respondent-Society and 1st petitioner is also its Chairman. By virtue of being the Chairman of 4th respondent-Society, the 1st petitioner automatically became a delegate of the said Society in the 5th respondent, it's financing Bank. He also became the Chairman of the Managing Committee of 5th respondent-Bank. These events happ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: (Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.) These three Writ Petitions can be disposed of by this common order as the question involved is common and the factual matrix is also identical. The writ petitioners have secured financial assistance from the respective banks, which are arrayed as the respondents. They developed Emu farms for the purpose of raring those birds. They have established these farms, but however, it is alleged, due to lack of supporting infrastructural facilities, the farms could not be run as the farm produce could not be effectively marketed. Therefore, managing and running the farms became a very difficult task. In fact, it is alleged that the birds have been carried to the nearest forest area and released into the forest at least to enable them survive on their own. In these set of circumstances, all the farm owners have taken up the matter with the respective bankers, State Bank of India and NABARD, which takes care of the agricultural financing benefits. It is al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: 1. These two Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the same cause of action. 2. CRP No.5418 of 2015 was filed, challenging the order in Election OP No.1 of 2013, dated 23.11.2015, whereunder the first respondent in the Election Petition was directed to produce his two children along with their Aadhar cards on 27.11.2015 with an observation that failing production of them, adverse inference would be drawn against him. 3. The said order was passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, with the following observations. This Election OP is filed by the petitioner alleging that the 1st respondent, who is elected as Sarpanch of Muddireddypally village of Balanagar mandal, in the Panchayat Election that was held on 27.07.2013 is having disqualification to hold the post of Sarpanch on the ground that 1st respondent got disqualification under Sec.19(3) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, by having three children after the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
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
1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners, who are husband and wife, is filed seeking directions to the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IX Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry for disposal of HMOP.No.67 of 2015. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. I have perused the material record. 3. The facts as borne out by the material record and as per the submissions of the learned senior counsel, in brief, are as follows: The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd petitioner. There was no consummation of marriage. On account of differences between them, they had started living separately since 08.12.2008. The 1st petitioner had originally filed against the 2nd petitioner, OP.No.1256 of 2011 under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( ˜the Act', for brevity) on the file of the Additional Family Court, Hyderabad for gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: (Ramesh Ranganathan, J.) Five joint-venture entities have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court questioning the orders passed by the Assessing Authority, for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-2013, denying them credit for the tax deducted at source by the Government of Andhra Pradesh from their bills. Sri S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri B.Narasimha Sarma and Sri T.Vinod Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax, would agree that it would suffice, for the disposal of all these writ petitions, if the contents of the assessment order, in W.P.No.31748 of 2015, are alone noted. The assessment order dated 26.02.2015, passed in respect of M/s.IVRCL-KBL (JV) for the assessment year 2012-13, records that the assessee was a joint-venture executing civil contract works; they had filed their return of income, for the assessment year 2012-13, electronically declaring their total income as Rs. ˜Nil'; they had claimed r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
The order dated 19.11.2015 in I.A.No.880 of 2015 in O.S.No.37 of 2015 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (FAC Judge, VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda) rejecting the prayer of the petitioner-1st defendant, filed under Order VII Rule 10 and 10A of CPC read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking returning of the plaint, is challenged before this Court. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs filed a suit against the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 herein, who are defendants 1 to 3 respectively in O.S.No.37 of 2015 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge at Miryalaguda. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A.No.880 of 2015 in brief are that the suit is filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents-plaintiffs seeking grant of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-1st defendant from alienating or conveying or delivering possession or otherwise creating rights in favour of the 3rd parties with respect to the suit schedule prop...
Tag this Judgment!