//
archives

government of andhra pradesh

This tag is associated with 7 posts

DECLARATION SUIT AND INJUNCTION – ARBITRATION ACT SEC. 8 = Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. PRIMA FAICE IS MAINTAINABLE = It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the property. As a matter of fact, the defendants wanted them to vacate the premises. Till the question raised in the suit is decided, they are entitled to be in possession, subject however to payment of rents.As a result, the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. in the respective suits are allowed and the respective defendants are restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs or evicting them from the suit schedule premises, subject, however, to the condition that the rent shall be paid with enhancement at 10% over and above what is provided for under the lease deeds from January 2013 onwards. The difference of rent, if any in, this behalf, shall be paid within four (4) weeks from today. The payment of extra amount shall be subject to the outcome of the suits. ;WHEN REFERRING ARBITRATION AROSE & WHEN SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE = Law is also fairly well settled to the effect that if the agreement governing relationship of the parties contains a clause providing for arbitration, a suit for seeking redressal in relation to any dispute covered by the agreement cannot be maintained and it stands barred by Section 8 of the Act. However, a keen observation of the clause extracted above reveals that it is only when the dispute or question of difference arises out of, or in respect of, those presents or as to the construction, meaning or the subject matter of the lease presents or as to any act done or omitted to be done under the lease or the rights, duties and liabilities of the respective parties, referable to the agreement, that the matter shall be referred to arbitration. – no application was filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. They did not make any counter claim in the suit nor did they file any suit for reference of the matter to arbitration. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court, referring the matter to arbitration cannot be sustained in law. The termination of the suit does not accord with the procedure prescribed under C.P.C. A decree could not have been passed outside the prayer in the suits.; ORDERS WHICH ARE dependant’ in nature and the challenge thereto cannot be rejected, on the ground that the suit itself stood terminated. That was a case, in which the delay in filing of appeal was condoned and the effected party challenged the order passed by the Court condoning the delay. Even while the proceedings, in which the order condoning delay was challenged, were pending, the appeal that came to be numbered was disposed of. An objection was raised to the effect that once the appeal has been disposed of, it is not at all open to the parties to challenge the order, through which the delay was condoned. This contention was negatived and the Hon’ble Supreme Court treated such appeals as ‘dependant’ upon the order, condoning the delay being sustained, whenever challenged. The same situation obtains in this case. REPORTED/PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9751

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR C.M.A.Nos.126 of 2012 and Batch 03.04.2013 M/s. Ashok International rep., by its Managing Director. State of A.P. and others. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Arbitration <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: 1. AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT … Continue reading

The petitioner is the owner of construction equipment vehicles which are used in the mining industry. The question whether they are liable to life tax under the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act=whether or not the Rocket Boomers used for tunneling and drilling works are motor vehicles. On such application being made, the RTA shall, if necessary, consult the manufacturers of those vehicles or experts in the field of construction equipment and determine the question as to whether the owners of those vehicles are liable to pay life tax after getting their vehicles registered under the MV Act. All the other writ petitions, subject to the observations in this common order, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR                                WRIT PETITION NO.51 OF 2012 DATED:3.1.2012 Between:   SMS Infrastructure Ltd., Thummalapally, Uranium Mine Project Vemula Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District Rep. by its Chief Vigilance and Administrative Officer S.M. Khaleel, S/o. Late S.M. Bazlullah R/o.D.No.4-8-205/6 Subhakar Reddy Colony Pulivendula … Continue reading

no arrest during investigation=The allegation made against the petitioner is that he fraudulently obtained a caste certificate and the same was cancelled by the District Collector, Khammam.=The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and 10, 11, and 12 of the Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act 1993 (Act 16 of 1993). Admittedly, the matter is at the stage of investigation. Further, the complaint prima facie reveals some allegations against the petitioner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, at this stage. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the police are hereby directed to complete the investigation without making arrest of the petitioner and after completion of investigation to file a final report either way before the competent Court.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICERAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.180 of 2012   ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused,  under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.63 of 2011 of P.S. C.I.D., Hyderabad. The allegation made against the petitioner is that he fraudulently obtained a caste certificate and the same … Continue reading

“(ii) Levy of life tax on the CEVs in mining industry: Some CEVs are designed for digging, carrying, loading/unloading, drilling with or without special modification for use in mining industry. Section 10 of the Taxation Act exempts such CEVs used solely in mining and agricultural purposes from payment of MV Tax. The Section makes it conditional that all these vehicles should also be registered under the MV Act. Indeed any class of motor vehicles cannot be permitted to be driven in a public place without being registered in accordance with Chapter IV of the MV Act. As per Section 41, an application for registration shall be accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government by the Rules. As per Rule 47 of the Central Rules, an application for registration shall be made in Form 20 to the Registering Authority. There is no dispute that at the time of registration, Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1963 (the A.P. Rules) requires the Registering Authority to make an entry regarding the amount of tax paid in the certificate of registration. Rule 6 of the A.P. Rules requires the owner to make the payment of tax at the time of registration of the vehicle. Therefore even when a motor vehicle is designed and used for mining purpose, first it has to obtain registration by paying tax so as to seek exemption under Section 10 of the Taxation Act. The grievance of the petitioners, though well founded, in view of the additional affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary the position is now clear that all those petitioners who use the CEVs for mining operations, can seek refund of the life tax after obtaining the exemption from the competent authority.”

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR                                WRIT PETITION NO.51 OF 2012 DATED:3.1.2012 Between:   SMS Infrastructure Ltd., Thummalapally, Uranium Mine Project Vemula Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District Rep. by its Chief Vigilance and Administrative Officer S.M. Khaleel, S/o. Late S.M. Bazlullah R/o.D.No.4-8-205/6 Subhakar Reddy Colony Pulivendula … Continue reading

condonation of delay=Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is always open to be construed liberally and even a feeble explanation showing a shadow of a sufficient cause may be acceptable in view of the need for a decision on any dispute on merits but not on technicalities, the total absence of any allegation of existence of any sufficient cause cannot be condoned even if the person requesting for such condonation is the State itself.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD   FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.M.P.No.5642 of 2011 and C.R.P.(SR).No.23470 of 2011 Between: Government of Andhra Pradesh .. Petitioner AND L. Krishnavardhan Reddy & 5 others .. Respondents The Court made the … Continue reading

a person, who seeks cancellation of a registered document, has two remedies available under law viz., (1) to seek invalidation of the registered sale deed by approaching the competent Court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; or (2) to seek cancellation of the registered document by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 (k) (i) of the Rules framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Act. It was further held that except these two remedies, no person or authority has the right to unilaterally invalidate a registered sale deed on any ground. On the above premises, the Writ Petition was allowed by setting aside the Order of unilateral annulment of registered sale deeds, however, with liberty to the respondents to initiate appropriate action, in accordance with law, for annulment of the registered sale deeds.

The Hon’ble Mr Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Contempt Case No.369 of 2011 01-07-2011 Maradani Srinivasa Prabhu and another 1.A.Vani Prasad, IAS,District Collector, West Godavari District and 4 others Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri S.Srinivas Reddy Counsel for respondents: Sri M.Sudhir,SC for APSCEF Corporation :Order: This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of Order, dated 28-10-2010, … Continue reading

the effect of the ban order imposed by the State Government vide Memo No.1280/COSE/A2/2004-4 dated 20th October, 2004, on the filling up of existing vacancies in the aided posts of teachers where the recruitment process had already been initiated by the management of the private schools.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.9541 of 2007 GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS. … PETITIONERS Vs. SRI SEVADAS VIDYAMANDIR HIGH SCHOOL & ORS. … RESPONDENTS WITH S.L.P.(C) No.10945 of 2007 AND S.L.P.(C) No.469 of 2011 AND S.L.P.(C) No.15231-32 of 2011 J U D G M E … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,034 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com