Posts

Showing posts from March, 2015

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Cheque was issued by and on behalf of the firm - Notice issued about the dishonor of cheque - after completion of Trial - pending the case A2 died on 2-12-2006 - Trail court dismissed the complaint against the A1 firm and A2 as abated and after hearing the A 3 and A4 dismissed the case on merits - Whether Firm A1 too abated when it was represented by A3 and A4 other partners ? for the purpose of imposing fine of double the amount, the death of A2 does not abate the firm as other partners can continue the firm on the death of one of the partner as per law - Remanded the matter to decide the case on the point whether the firm dissolved or not with reference to the D-1 partnership deed already exhibited, from death of A-2 one of the partners and if not dissolved for nothing to abate to decide the liability of A-1 firm though not A-3 representing A-1 firm personally liable, to the liability of imposing fine against the firm in the event of the debt is proved legally enforceable - 2015 A.P.msklawreports

the Complainant is a merchant and doing
cotton business, A-1 is cotton merchant, A-2 to A-4 are its partners .                                                      they used to purchase cotton from several persons like complainant on credi
from 12.06.1998 onwards accused are
maintaining khata with the complainant in the course of their
business, that the said Khata is running and mutual
As per the khata
the accused has to pay an amount of Rs.4,89,655/- to the
complainant as on 05.12.2000 and the complainant demanded the   
accused several times to pay the said amount, that the accused gave
cheque for Rs.4,76,552/- and the same was when presented returned 
dishonoured.  
The complainant issued a statutory legal notice and the
accused got issued reply and did not pay the amount, for which the
complainant presented the complaint.

The trial Court recorded that the case against

Accused Nos.1 and 2 was abated on 05.12.2006, for death of A-2 who 
was representing A-1 firm and after hearing both sides and af…

Who is the competent authority to determine the dues of Workmen when the company in Liquidation ? once the company is in winding up, the only competent authority to determine the workmens dues is the liquidator who obviously has to act under the supervision of the Company Court and by no other authority.-2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPROTS

Section 19(19) of the 1993 Act does not clothe DRT
with jurisdiction to determine the workmens claim
against the debtor company. The adjudication of
workmens dues against the debtor company in
liquidation has to be made by the liquidator. In other
words, once the company is in winding up, the only
competent authority to determine the workmens dues 
is the liquidator who obviously has to act under the
supervision of the Company Court and by no other
authority.

     In the light of the analysis made hereinbefore, the
adjudication made by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour is
without jurisdiction and the same is in the teeth of
determination of the claim of the workman already made by the
Official Liquidator. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. The
Company Application is, accordingly, allowed. - 2015 A.P. MSK LAW REPORTS


question of jurisdiction = the principal Civil Court locating in Hyderabad cannot be a Court within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (e) of the aforesaid Act as no part of cause of action has arisen nor the respondents are having place of business within the territorial limit of this State. It would appear from said tripartite agreement that the same was executed and entered into at Bangalore. Works in terms of the contract is to be executed at Bangalore. Hence, performance of tripartite agreement has to be done in Bangalore. Nothing has happened in Hyderabad except the 2nd respondent is having his place of business at Hyderabad. It is settled position of law that by agreement of the parties jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon any Court which does not have under law. Admittedly, the agreement has been made and entered into at Bangalore, works which are to be performed in terms of bipartite agreement initially, now tripartite one at Bangalore, and performance and non-performance therefore, necessarily will take place at Bangalore. It is however argued that I can entertain this application by virtue of clause (b) of Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure as one of the respondents carries on business at Hyderabad. This provision cannot be invoked having regard to approach of the application wherein seat of arbitration being Hyderabad is sought to be asserted, and no leave as required under clause (b) of Section 20 of C.P.C. has been asked for. In view of discussion, as above, no answer is called for as far as third question is concerned. In view of discussion above, I dismiss this application with liberty to file before appropriate Honble Chief Justice or designated Judge, as the case may be, of the High Court.-2015 A.P. MSK LAWREPORTS

The applicant is wholly owned subsidiary of
Solentanche-Freyssinet Group, and is dealing in mechanically
stabilized Reinforced Earth Retaining Walls/Precast Arch
Structures, etc.  
The 2nd respondent which was formerly known as
Maytas Infra Limited was awarded a contract, dated 29th February,
2008, for construction of boundary walls, roads, drains and earth
filling, by Bangalore Metro Rail Project at Bayappanhalli Depot,
Bangalore.  
Thereafter, on 28th March, 2008, it, having faced
difficulties in completing works of the principal contract as per
schedule, entered into a sub-contract with the applicant for the
works of construction of reinforced earth retaining wall of the main
contract on back to back basis.
 Thereafter, tripartite agreement
was executed on 3.6.2009 amongst the applicant on one hand and  
the respondents 1 & 2 on the other hand. 
By this tripartite
agreement, it was agreed mutually that all the bills, including taxes
for materials supplied and services provided by the applicant
set…

It is settled principle of law that in the field of expertise, the Court cannot substitute its own opinion in order to discard any experts suggestion, on which, the Government has acted upon, in particular in absence of counter expertise. In this context, we have seen the order dated 24.7.2008, which is the ultimate decision of the Government. In paragraph-5 thereof, we have noticed the Government has acted on the basis of the report of the Chief Engineer, North Coast, Visakhapatnam. The relevant portion thereof is set out hereunder. Government have examined the matter carefully, keeping in view of the report of Chief Engineer, North Coast, Visakhapatnam. It is decided to accept the proposal of the Chief Engineer, North Coast, Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, administrative approval for an estimate of Rs.70.47 crores (Rupees Seventy Crores and Forty Seven Lakhs Only) is accorded to take up the work relating to excavation of Gajapathipalem Branch Canal taking off from KM 97.7 of Thotapalli Right Main Canal to provide irrigation facilities to additional area of 15,000 acres beyond Gadigedda by allowing canal water to cross Gadigedda by means of an aqua duct. Therefore, it is clear from the aforesaid Government Order that it has not passed the order without any material. The report of the Chief Engineer, North Coast, Visakhapatnam has been considered and thereafter decision has been taken. It is not suggested that Chief Engineer has no competence. The Court cannot interfere with a decision taken by the Government rationally, so to say, with the acceptable materials. This project, no doubt, involves lot of civil engineering and it is within the realm of technical expertise. The report of the Chief Engineer has not been brought to our notice nor it has been alleged that the said report is un- acceptable in any sense. In other words, the report of the Chief Engineer has not been challenged here on the ground of illegality or irrationality. In the absence of these allegations, we are unable to entertain the grievance of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.

THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR              

Writ Petition No.3165 of 2009

16-02-2015

Gadde Babu Rao,Ex. M.L.A.,Cheepurupally Village and Mandal,Vizianagaram  
District.   Petitioner

The State of Andhra Pradesh,Represented by its Principal Secretary,Irrigation &
CAD (Maj. Irri(i) Department),Hyderabad and others..Respondents

For the petitioner: Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao

For Respondents 1 to 4:Sri B. Mayur Reddy, Additional A.G.
                                        for G.P. for Irrigation
For Respondent No.5:  Sri B. Narayan Reddy

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?CITATIONS:

THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA            
 AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

Writ Petition No.3165 of 2009

DATED:16.02.2015  

THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA            
 AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

Writ Petition No.3165 of 2009

Order: (per the Honble the Chief Justice …

One Smt. Bhuma Shoba Nagi Reddy since deceased (hereinafter referred to as deceased) filed her nomination being fielded by Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (hereinafter referred to as YSR Congress Party), an unrecognized political party registered with the 1st respondent to contest election in Allagadda Assembly segment. However, the said deceased died in a road accident on 24.04.2014 at about 11.00 a.m. without withdrawing her nomination on or before 23rd April, 2014. Since YSR Congress Party is unrecognized registered political party, election cannot be adjourned under the present provisions of Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on account of death as above. At the same time, election ought not to have been allowed to be held with the dead candidate and the name of the deceased should have been deleted from the list of contesting parties as from the date of death and to that of poll there was a clear gap of 14 days.= (1) If an election, (the term election being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections. (2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to calling in question an election if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election. (3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well- settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of malafide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law. (4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the court. (5) The court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the courts indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the court would act with reluctance and shall not act, except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material. This Court would therefore not entertain or act upon a writ petition which is outwardly innocuous but is essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. The consequential prayers of the petitioners in both the subject cases manifest that they sought to obstruct the natural flow of the ongoing election process. One wanted deletion of the name of the deceased candidate from the list of contesting candidates before the election while the other wanted the votes polled by the deceased candidate to be treated as invalid and the election to be decided on the basis of the votes polled by the remaining candidates.

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR                    

Writ Petition Nos.14303 of 2014

16-2-2015

B.Harshavardhan Reddy Petitioner              

Election Commission of India  Represented by its Principal Secretary Nirvachan
Sadhan, Ashoka Road New Delhi  110 001 and others Respondents                

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER : Sri M.S. Prasad, Senior Counsel    
                         for Sri M. Anish Sathya Kamal

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1: Sri Avinash Desai        
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.2 & 3 :Sri V.V. Prabhakar Rao        


<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? CITATIONS: 1. (1999) 4 SCC 526
                     2. (2012) 4 SCC 194
                     3. 25 ELR 61 (All)
                     4. AIR 1952 SC 64
                     5. AIR 1959 SC 233
                     6. (2000) 8 SCC 216
                     7. (1978) 1 SCC 405
                     8. (2004) 7 SCC 492
                     9. 2009 (3) ALD 822
 …

Under what circumstances, the Lokayukta can entertain complaints against other public servants is elaborated in Section 7(1) clause (4) which we set out hereunder: 7. Matters which may be investigated by Lokayukta or Upa- Lokayukta:-- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, or at the behest of,-- (i) (ii) (iii) (iii)(a) (iv) any other public servant, belonging to such class or section of public servants, as may be notified by the government in this behalf after consultation with the Lokayukta, in any case where a complaint involving an allegation is made in respect of such action, or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Lokayukta, the subject of an allegation. Unlike other clauses, under the aforesaid clause there must be a complaint involving an allegation. Again the word allegation has been defined in Section 2(b) of the Act, which is set out hereunder: 2(b) allegation in relation to a public servant means any affirmation that such public servant (i) has abused his position as such, to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person, or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person; (ii) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by improper or corrupt motive and thereby caused loss to the State or any member or section of the public; or (iii) is guilty of corruption, or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant; Thus, on a conjoint reading of sub-sections (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub- section (b) of Section 2 and Section 7 of the Act, we think that the Upa- Lokayukta can entertain complaints only when there are prima facie allegations with particulars fitting requirements of clauses (i)(ii)(iii) referred to above. We have already culled out the gist of the complaint made against the Tahsildar and we not find any such allegation made in the complaint. In addition to what has been found by the Upalokayukta, we also find in the complaint, reading on the face of it, it does not confer the jurisdiction on the Upa-Lokayukta.

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

Writ Petition No.3059 of 2015

12-2-2015

R.K. Mittal Petitioner

The Institute of Lokayukta For the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Rep.
by its Registrar, Hyderabad and others Respondents

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sri B. Bal Reddy    

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 & 2 : None appeared        
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 : Government Pleader for Revenue        

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?CITATIONS:


THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA            
 AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

WRIT PETITION NO.3059 OF 2015    

ORDER: (per the Honble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

        This writ petition has been filed impugning the order of the Upa-
Lokayukta dated 29.12.2014 refusing to entertain the petitioners
complaint under the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act).
      Learned counsel for…

whether we can entertain the Writ Petition for issuance of writ of Prohibition treating the instant Arbitral Tribunal is having a statutory character. We think that this Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of Prohibition for the reasons as stated hereunder and the same are backed by the materials supplied by the petitioner itself.

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR                    

Writ Petition No.80 of 2015

22-1-2015

Hyderabad Cricket Association,Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium,Uppal,
R.R.District.Rep. by its Managing Secretary  Petitioner      

The State of Talangana,Law and Legislative Department,Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and others Respondents  

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER : Sri V.Ramachander Goud      

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.1: G.P. for Law and Legislative Affairs    
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2 : G.P. for Sports and Culture      
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3   : Sri M.Papa Reddy        

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?CITATIONS:


THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA            
 AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        


WRIT PETITION No.80 OF 2015  


DATED: 22.01.2015


ORDER: (per the Honble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

     This Writ Petition has been filed by Hyderabad Cricket