Posts

Showing posts from August, 2015

The petitioner, a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with an accident which occurred while he was driving a vehicle on 28.10.1992. He was imposed with the punishment of removal from service under order dated 10.08.1993. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF. The appellate authority allowed the appeal by order dated 10.12.1993, directing reinstatement of the petitioner in service but ordering that he should be placed under suspension after such reinstatement till completion of a fresh departmental enquiry for misconduct. =To begin with, the Special Director General, Southern Sector, CRPF, Hyderabad, had no jurisdiction to exercise power under Rule 29(d) of the Rules of 1955 in the year 1997, and therefore, his action in issuing a show-cause notice and thereafter enhancing the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was without legal sanction. Further, even if the said exercise of power is assumed to be valid for any reason, the same was not within a reasonable time and such belated exercise of suo motu power cannot be sustained on facts and in law.The writ petition is therefore allowed setting aside the order dated 29.10.1997 passed by the Special Director General, Southern Sector, CRPF, Hyderabad, and the order dated 14.05.1998 of the Director General of Police, CRPF, New Delhi, confirming the same in appeal. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service but as he remained out of uniformed service for all these years, he would be entitled to continuity of service only with notional attendant benefits. He shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period that he remained out of service. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. There shall be no order as to costs.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

WRIT PETITION NO.4173 OF 2005    

17-08-2015


Balbir Singh .. Petitioner.. Petitioner

The Director General of Police, Central Reserve    Police Force, C.G.O.
Complex, Lodhi Road,  New Delhi and others .. Respondents



Counsel for petitioner  : Sri M. Jeevan Reddy

Counsel for respondents:  Sri Raghavender, learned counsel
                           representing Sri B. Narayana Reddy,
                           learned Assistant Solicitor General
                           for India

<Gist:

>Head Note:    

? CASES REFERRED:    

1. W.P.NO.26172 OF 2001 dated 08.11.2012  
2. AIR 1969 SC 1297
3. (1997) 6 SCC 71
4. (2007) 11 SCC 363
5. (2009) 9 SCC 352
6. 1996(3) ALT 887


THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

WRIT PETITION NO.4173 OF 2005    

O R D E R
      The petitioner, a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with
an accident which occurred while he was driving …

unauthorized illegal constructions made by the other party in violation of mandate of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, Act, 1955), Rules made there under and the building permissions granted in their favour. =ordinarily certificate of posting cannot amount to effective service of notice. However, in a given case, it is permissible to the Court to presume service of notice sent by certificate of posting by looking into surrounding facts.= i) Since the petitioners are now in receipt of intimation notice dated 12.11.2008, petitioners shall submit the required documents and penalization charges as demanded in the said intimation notice within a period of three weeks from this date and on furnishing of such documents and payment of charges, if the authorities are satisfied that the required documents are furnished, the building regularization application of the petitioners shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed as warranted by law within further period of three weeks. Till the orders are passed, as directed above, the notice issued under Section 636 of the Act shall be kept in abeyance and no coercive action shall be taken against petitioners.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE  P.NAVEEN RAO        

WRIT PETITION NOs.1470 of 2015  

14-08-2015

Shri Ratan Kumar,  s/o. Raghunath, Aged 48 years, Occu: Business, r/o. H.No.15-
1-91/2, Old Feelkhana, Hyderabad and two others.  Petitioners

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, Tank Bund
Road, Hyderabad and others. . Respondents  

Counsel for the petitioners :  Sri V.M.M.Chary,  counsel for          
                                petitioners in WP Nos.1470 and
                                16690 of 2015;
                                Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy counsel for
                                Petitioners in WP No.4306 of 2015

Counsel  for the:Sri N.Ashok Kumar, standing Respondents:counsel for R1 to R3,
                                               Sri. A.K.Kishore Reddy counsel
                                               for R4 to R6 in W.P.No.1470 of
2015;

                                               Sri N.Ashok Kumar, standing counsel
        …

refusing to refer the dispute to the arbitration.=when there is reference to a document in a contract, the Court has to consider whether the reference to the document is with the intention of incorporating the contents of that document in entirety into the contract, or with the intention of adopting or borrowing specific portions of the said document for application to the contract, we would like to infer the intention of the parties in incorporating the words you are deemed to have full knowledge of the terms and conditions stipulated in the main contract between the employer and us and such terms and conditions, shall apply to you in so far as it is applicable occurring in clause 6 of the sub-contract between the parties.Admittedly, dispute resolution mechanism has been separately incorporated by the parties in clause 17 of the sub-contract. Even a dispute resolution mechanism is provided in the main contract between the employer and the contractor in sub clauses 1 to 4 of clause 67, as extracted in the above.The very fact that a distinct dispute resolution mechanism has been incorporated by the parties in clause 17 of the sub-contract reflects the intention of the parties that they never inclined to adopt the dispute resolution mechanism contained in clause 67 of GCC. When viewed in that perspective, certainly, the words mentioned in clause 6 of the sub-contract afore extracted, in our view, definitely indicate the intention of the parties that only the terms and conditions of the main contract relating to execution of the work were adopted as part of the sub-contract between the parties herein and not the contract in its entirety. Thus, clause 17 of the sub-contract would completely exclude the invocation of arbitration clause contained in sub clause 4 of clause 67 of the main contract between the employer and the respondent. the respondent did not deny the specific reference made to arbitration agreement contained in the main contract in the letters, dated 18-10-2012 and 24-06-2013, we are of the considered view, that the said circumstance does not improve the case of the revision petitioners for the reason that there has been distinct sub-contract between the revision petitioners and the respondent, more particularly, incorporation of clause 17 in relation to a distinct dispute resolution mechanism. Therefore, we are not convinced with the argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners in that regard. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the instant revision petition, and the same stands dismissed. We make no order as to costs.

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR                

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1394 OF 2015    

17-08-2015

M/s Lakshmi Sai Constructions Company & another.. Petitioners

M/s IJM Corporation, Berhard.. Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:Sri S. Rajan,

Counsel for Respondent:Sri N.V. Sumanth
                        M/s Indus Law Firm.
<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?  CASES REFERRED:    

1. 2009 (3) Arb. L.R. 1 (SC)

 HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY        
 AND
 HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1394 OF 2015    


ORDER:(Per Honble Sri Justice A. Shankar Narayana)



        Assailing the order, dated 13-02-2015, in I.A. No.660 of 2014
in O.S. No.1265 of 2013, passed by the learned III Additional District
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, the instant appeal is
preferred by the revision petitioners.

        2.  By the aforesaid order, the Court below dismissed I.A.
No.660 of 2014 filed by the revisi…

M.V.Act - allowing the deceased to travel in the goods vehicle as a gratuitous/unauthorized passenger is concerned, learned counsel argued the Tribunal has not at all answered this issue and ultimately held that Insurance Company is liable. She thus prayed to allow the appeal and exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability.= Then, coming to second violation admittedly, the vehicle in question is a goods carriage vehicle and the deceased boarded on it as a midway unauthorized passenger. A perusal of Ex.B1policy shows that no premium was paid by R1 to give coverage to gratuitous/unauthorized passengers in the goods carriage vehicle. Under Section 147 of MV Act the risk of unauthorized/gratuitous passengers need not be covered unless extra premium is paid. The Apex Court clarified this fact in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani which was followed in subsequent decisions also. By this fact also the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not addressed this issue. So, I find considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company. 9) In the result: a) This MACMA filed by the Insurance Company is allowed and the appellant/Insurance Company is exempted from its liability and it is directed that the first respondent/insured shall pay the compensation to the claimants as awarded by the Tribunal. b) If, pending appeal, the Insurance Company paid any compensation, it shall recover the same from the first respondent/insured. c) No costs in the appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO          

MACMA No.1198 of 2009  

12-08-2015

National Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Divisional manager,
Visakhapatnam.... Appellant

Chintapalli Ankayamma and others  Respondents  

Counsel for Appellant : Smt. SAV Ratnam

Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3   : Sri T.Nageswara Rao
Counsel for respondents 6 & 7 : Sri C.Appaiah Sharma

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:
1)2008 ACJ 721 (SC)
2)2003 ACJ 1 (SC)

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO            

M.A.C.M.A.No.1198 of 2009

JUDGMENT:  
        Aggrieved by the Award dated 10.10.2008 in M.V.O.P.No.450 of
2005 passed by the Chairman, MACT-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram  
(for short the Tribunal), the 2nd respondent in the OP preferred the instant
appeal.
2)      The factual matrix of the case is thus:
a)      The case of the claimants is that on 04.09.2004 when the deceased
Appala Naidu boarded van bearing No.AP 31 W 9210 at 12 noon at Kosta  
village junction …