Posts

Showing posts from June, 2015

The Writ Petition is directed against the Award passed by the 1st respondent, the Andhra Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Hyderabad on 05.10.2013 in the proceedings initiated before it by the 2nd respondent company.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            

W.P. No.13639 of 2014

25-06-2015

State Water and Sanitation Mission,  Erramanzil, Hyderabad rep. by its Project
Director. .Petitioner

The A.P. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Hyderabad &
another..Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural
                             Development (TG)

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S. Dwarakanath

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            
WRIT PETITION No. 13639 OF 2014  
O R D E R:
      The State Water and Sanitation Mission is the petitioner
herein.  The Writ Petition is directed against the Award passed by
the 1st respondent, the Andhra Pradesh Micro and Small
Enterprises Facilitation Council, Hyderabad on 05.10.2013 in the
proceedings initiated before it by the 2nd respondent company.
      The 2nd respondent company is a small-scale industry.  It
has filed a claim petition b…

Magistrate is not a Post Office = Magistrate, who is dealing with a complaint under Section 190 read with 200 Cr.P.C. has to apply his mind to find out as to whether the complaint makes out a prima facie case or not. Only, in the event, a prima facie case is made out, the complaint can be forwarded to the police for making investigation and to file a final report under Section 173 of the Code. Reasons are required to be spelt out for that satisfaction arrived at by the Magistrate. Perhaps, those reasons need not be very elaborate. Mechanically, no Magistrate can forward the complaints received to the police for investigation. Such measures would result in reducing the Court to that of a mere post office or to that of a sorting office attached to the Railway Mail Service. That is not the purpose which is sought to be achieved by the Code where provision is made for a genuine complainant to approach the competent Court for securing redressal for his grievance, when the police failed to act in the matter. I am, therefore, convinced that the entire exercise is an illegal one and hence, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed.-2015 Telangana & A.P.msklawreports

Magistrate is not a Post Office = Magistrate, who is dealing with a complaint under Section 190 read with 200 Cr.P.C. has to apply his mind to find out as to whether the complaint makes out a prima facie case or not.  Only, in the event, a prima facie case is made out, the complaint can be forwarded to the police for making investigation and to file a final report under Section 173 of the Code. Reasons are required to be spelt out for that satisfaction arrived at by the Magistrate.  Perhaps, those reasons need not be very elaborate. Mechanically, no Magistrate can forward the complaints received to the police for investigation.  Such measures would result in reducing the Court to that of a mere post office or to that of a sorting office attached to the Railway Mail Service.  That is not the purpose which is sought to be achieved by the Code where provision is made for a genuine complainant to approach the competent Court for securing redressal for his grievance, when the police failed…

Or. VII, rule 11 of C.P.C.- Suit to set aside Lok Adalat on ground of fraud & collusion - Trial court returned the plaint as not maintainable - only remedy is to file writ - Their Lordship held that Whether or not the appellant is justified in his claim, that the award of the Lok Adalat is vitiated by fraud, are matters to be examined by the Court below. As the power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is to be exercised by the civil court only if the suit appears, from the statement in the plaint, to be barred by law, the court below erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground that a civil suit is not maintainable. The order under appeal is set aside. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the truth or otherwise of the appellants claim that the award of the Lok Adalat is vitiated by fraud. The Court below shall adjudicate the suit on its merits, and in accordance with law. - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

They sought a decree in their favour, and against the
defendants, to declare para 18 of the compromise recorded in O.S.
No.481 of 2007 before the Lok Adalat dated 22.08.2007, in so far
as it related to land admeasuring Ac.9.29 gts of land in Sy.
Nos.271, 272 and 273 shown to have created rights in favour of
defendant No.31 i.e., M/s. Bhargavi Constructions represented by
Sri V. Ramachandra Rao, as nonest in law for having been
obtained by fraud and collusion, by playing fraud upon the
plaintiffs; and for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, especially defendant No.31, their agents, servants,
employees etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule A, B and
C properties. =


The Court below had rejected the plaint solely on
the ground that a civil suit cannot be filed, and the plaintiffs
remedy is only to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
Wheth…

Or.XV-A of the Code - Suit for eviction and for arrears of rents - interim application for deposit of arrears of rents - before filing written statement ,basing on notices and exchange of notice - court allowed the same - when there is dispute about the arrears of rents - quantum of rent and before filing the written statement - as per sub rule 2 no petition be allowed and as such set aside the order and reopened the I.A.for fresh disposal - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

The plaintiff / respondent herein filed the suit for eviction of the
defendant petitioner from the suit scheduled property and for delivering
the vacant position thereof to her.  The plaintiff also prayed for a sum of
Rs.54,41,874/- to be paid towards arrears of rent together with the
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the
same is realized and also sought for future mesne profits.

 The plaintiff has also filed I.A.No.315 of 2014 for a direction to
the respondent to pay her an amount of Rs.52,79,713/- being the arrears
of rent payable.  This I.A.No.315 of 2014 is moved in terms of and in
accordance with Order-XV-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (for short the Code).  That application is, now, ordered on
16-04-2015.   =

Rule (1) clearly spelt out that the defendant, while filing his
written statement, shall deposit the amount representing the undisputed
arrears calculated up to that date into the Court and shall continue to
deposi…

Section 17 of the Act has conferred a right to reside in a shared household to every woman in a domestic relationship and Section 19 is an enabling provision empowering the Magistrate for passing an appropriate order for residence of the parties. While Section 20 of the Act talks of the monetary relief which can be granted to a party under this Act, clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act makes it very clear that the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law for the time being in force can be granted by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the fact that the second respondent or respondents 2 and 3 have already approached the Family Court by instituting O.P.Nos.564 of 2007 and 565 of 2007 for restitution of conjugal rights and for securing maintenance respectively, would not come in the way of the Magistrate to exercise the power available under Section 20 of the Act and award appropriate monetary relief, should he consider that grant of Rs.3,000/- as monthly maintenance to the respondents 2 and 3 is hopelessly inadequate for one to lead a life of dignity in a city like Visakhapatnam. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the grounds urged by the petitioner for quashing D.V.C.No.5 of 2012 are not available and since the Domestic Violence Case has made out a prima facie case requiring prompt and immediate attention for securing the reliefs under Section 17 and Section 20 of the Act, it is only appropriate that the stay order passed by this Court on 03.01.2013 be vacated. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition stands dismissed. D.V.C.No.5 of 2012 shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.23 OF 2013    

17-06-2015

1.Bheri Veera Vara Ravindra Prasad, S/o.Laxmi Narayana.2.Bheri Lakshmi
Narayana, S/o.Late Chellarao. ...PETITIONERS

1.State of A.P., Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad, and two others....RESPONDENTS    


Counsel for Petitioners: Sri V.Hari Haran

Counsel for Respondent No.1:  Public Prosecutor (AP)
 Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3:   Sri P.Veerraju

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.23 OF 2013    
ORDER:
      This petition has been preferred for quashing D.V.C.No.5 of 2012
on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Visakhapatnam.
      Respondents 2 and 3 are the petitioners in the said D.V.C. and
the petitioners herein are the respondents in that case.  The first
petitioner in D.V.C is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent
therei…

the petitioner is deemed to have opted for commutation of only 1/3rd of his pro rata pension as per the rules. Consequently, the respondents would have to redo the exercise of working out his pensionary benefits right from the start. In accordance with such option, the respondents shall work out the commuted pension payable initially and upon revision, the regular pension payable after such commutation initially and upon revision, the amount payable after restoration of the commuted pension and all the arrears. As the petitioner received certain amounts in excess of the amounts due and payable to him, he would necessarily have to refund the same. Such amounts would therefore have to be adjusted against the final amount calculated to be due and payable to the petitioner pursuant to this order. The amounts found due and payable by both sides shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum. The entire exercise shall be completed and the final amount shall be remitted to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Considering the refractory attitude of the respondents in driving the petitioner from pillar to post for his rightful dues, this Court is constrained to impose exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/- upon the respondents. The writ petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this inal order.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

WRIT PETITION NO.23832 OF 2009    

24-06-2015

K. Subrahmanyam.. Petitioner

The Border Roads Development Board,  rep. by its Secretary, Government of
India, New Delhi and others .. Respondents


Counsel for petitioner: Sri Siva
                         Smt. K. Rajya Lakshmi

Counsel for respondents:Sri T. Balaji
                         Sri B. Narayana Reddy


<Gist:


>Head Note:    

? CASES REFERRED:    

1. (1979) 2 SCC 150 = AIR 1979 SC 1060.
2. (2000) 8 SCC 395 = AIR 2000 SC 3243.
3. AIR 1982 MADRAS 386 (DB)  
4. 2006 Writ LR 705 (DB).
5. 2013(5) ABR 458 = 2013 (6) ALLMR 724 (DB).
6. AIR 1999 AP 335 = 1999 (3) ALD 632.


THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

WRIT PETITION NO.23832 OF 2009    

O R D E R

        The petitioner, an octogenarian, is aggrieved by the rejection of
his claim for certain pensionary benefits by the Director General,
Border Roads, New Delhi, the second respondent, under letter dated
22.05.2009 (wrongly men…

The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to renew his repairer licence without insisting for deletion of the word Corporation from the name of his business establishment.=the Controller is the authority vested with the power of granting licences. Under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act, such licence shall be issued in such form and manner, on such conditions, for such period and such area of jurisdiction and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed. Therefore, the question arises as to who is empowered to prescribe the matters, which are mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act. Section 53 (2) of the Act empowers the State Government to provide for various aspects while making rules. Those aspects include any or all of those which are mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act. All those aspects have been repeated in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the Act. In exercise of Rule making power, the State of Andhra Pradesh has framed the Andhra Pradesh Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011. Rule 11 (3) of the Rules provides that every licence issued to a manufacturer, repairer or dealer shall be in appropriate form set out in schedule III of the Rules. Schedule III of the Rules contains the conditions of licence enumerated as (a) to (h) of condition No.1. A conjoint reading of these provisions makes it abundantly clear that it is only the State Government which is empowered to prescribe conditions for grant of licence by framing Rules and respondent No.1 is only empowered to issue licence subject to such conditions as prescribed by the State Government. No provision under the Act or the Rules is brought to the notice of this Court under which this power of the State Government is delegated to respondent No.1. In the absence of such delegation, respondent No.1 has no power or jurisdiction to impose any condition other than the one, which is prescribed under Schedule III to the Rules. At best, respondent No.1 can only request the State Government to appropriately amend the Rules and the Schedule for deletion of the word Corporation from the name of the business establishments of the licencees. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned proceedings issued by respondent Nos.1 and 3 are held as wholly without jurisdiction and they are accordingly quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, interim order dated 10.11.2011 in WPMP.No.37049 of 2011 is vacated and WPMP.No.37049 of 2011 and WVMP.No.4764 of 2011 stand disposed of as infructuous.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY            

WRIT PETITION No.29894 of 2011  

11-06-2015

M.V.Krishnaiah  . Petitioner

The Controller of Legal Metrology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and
2 others.  Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:  Mr. P.Sridhar Reddy

Counsel for Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (A.P)

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? CITATIONS:


HONBLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY        
WRIT PETITION No.29894 of 2011  

Dated: 11.06.2015


The Court made the following:


ORDER:

      This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare Circular Memo
No.3255/L2/2011, dated 26.08.2011, of respondent No.1 and consequential
Circular Memo No.1857/B/11, dated 12.09.2011, of respondent No.3 as
illegal and without jurisdiction.  The petitioner has sought for a direction
to the respondents to renew his repairer licence without insisting for
deletion of the word Corporation from the name of his business
establishment.


      I have heard Mr. P.Sridhar Reddy, lea…

The Division Bench in this case having disagreed with the view taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Bilasraika Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad V. Devi Trading Co., Hongkong( ) (for short Bilasraika) formulated the following questions, which consequently require determination by this Full Bench: a) Whether the Court as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Act, is entitled to dispose of the application filed under Section 9 of the Act before initiation of the arbitral proceedings under section 21 of the Act, ex- parte without giving notice to the respondents, if the facts and circumstances so warrant? b) Whether the Court as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Act, is entitled to grant any interim order pending disposal of the interim measure application under Section 9 of the Act? c) Whether further application pending disposal of the interim measure under Section 9 of the Act, is maintainable?=whether a Court can dispose of the application filed under Section 9 of the Act even before initiation of arbitral proceedings under Section 21 of the Act is concerned, requires no further discussion in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sundaram Finance (supra) and in Firm Ashok Traders (supra), which we have already considered in the foregoing paragraphs. Thus, we answer the questions as framed in the order of reference as follows:- the Court as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act, is undoubtedly entitled to dispose of the application filed under Section 9 of the Act even before initiation of the arbitral proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. The Court, however, cannot dispose of such application ex parte without giving notice to the respondents, but Court can pass ex parte ad interim order pending the application filed under Section 9 of the Act.

THE HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HONBLE SRI SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO          
AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO            

C.M.A. No.1206 OF 2012  

12-06-2015

M/s.East India Udyog Limited  Appellant

Maytas Infra Limited & another    Respondents

Counsel for Appellant:  Sri M.Ravindernath Reddy
                        Sri A.Srinarayana

Counsel for Respondents:Sri S.Niranjan Reddy

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred:       1) 2011(5) ALD 327 (DB) = 2011 (4) ALT 297 (DB)
                        2) 2008 (2) ALD 693 (DB) = 2008 (3) ALT 631 (DB)
                        3) (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 479
                        4) (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 155
                        5) AIR (SC)-2007-0-2144
                        6) (2007) 7 SCC 125
                        7) (2002) 2 SCC 510
                        8) [ 2014(3) BomCR 551]
                        9) (2010) 2 GLR 512 = MANU/GH/0312/2009  
          …