advocatemmmohan
Mandamus
Deaf & Dumb persons – transport allowance on par with other Blind & Orthopedically handicapped government employees – writ for directions to Governments of central and state – Apex court allowed the same = Deaf Employees Welfare Association & Another .. Petitioners Versus Union of India & Others .. Respondents = Published in / Cited in / Report in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41072
Deaf & Dumb persons – transport allowance on par with other Blind & Orthopedically handicapped government employees – writ for directions to Governments of central and state – Apex court allowed the same = This Writ Petition has been preferred by two Associations representing the Deaf and Dumb persons … Continue reading
Service = When the appointment of one person held wrong , the other person can not be appointed automatically by way of writ of Mandamus unless in exceptional circumstances = GANAPATH SINGH GANGARAM SINGH RAJPUT … APPELLANT Versus GULBARGA UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS = http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40953
When the appointment of one person held wrong , the other person can not be appointed automatically by way of writ of Mandamus unless in exceptional circumstances = Shivanand challenged the aforesaid selection and appointment in a writ petition filed before the High Court, inter alia, contending that Masters’ Degree in Mathematics will not … Continue reading
Foreign Liquor (Compounding,Blending and Bottling) Rules, 1975 (for short “1975 Rules”) read with Section 14 of the Abkari Act (for short “the Act”). – whether the High Court can issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the State to part with its exclusive privilege, in the matter of granting licence for establishing distilleries under the Foreign Liquor (Compounding, Blending and Bottling) Rules, 1975 (for short “1975 Rules”) read with Section 14 of the Abkari Act (for short “the Act”). = The Respondent, in our view, could lay a claim only if it establishes that a preferential treatment has been meted out to M/s Amrut Distilleries, Bangalore and M/s. Empee Distilleries, Madras while granting licences for establishing the respective distillery units in the Palakkad District on the ground of discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Respondent has never challenged the distillery licences granted to them, but only prayed for another licence for it as well which, in our view, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Citizens cannot have a fundamental right to trade or carry on business in the properties or rights belonging to the State nor can there be any infringement of Article 14, if the State prefers other applicants for the grant of licence, during the pendency of some other applications, unless an applicant establishes a better claim over others.= learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have overlooked those vital factors while issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Government/Commissioner to grant distillery licence to the respondent for setting up of a new distillery in the Palakkad District, thinking that the impugned order is nothing but old wine in new bottle. We are informed, after 1998, not even a single licence has been granted by the State Government/Commissioner for establishing distillery units anywhere in the State. That being the factual and legal position, we are of the view that the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the issuance of a distillery licence to the respondent. 35. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Ordered accordingly.Page 34 34 However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1642 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9098 of 2009] State of Kerala and Others .. Appellants Versus Kandath Distilleries .. Respondent J U D G M E N T K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. … Continue reading
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) =It is evident from the record that petitioners 1 to 6 were served with the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 01.12.2010 and as far as petitioner No.7 is concerned, the same was stated to be published in two newspapers on 01.02.2011. Subsequently, the petitioners made representation to the respondent-bank on 27.10.2011, requesting to consider their case, to which the bank gave reply, dated 31.01.2011, rejecting their representation. Copies of the said reply of the bank, which were acknowledged by the petitioners, were also filed along with the counter-affidavit, which shows that the petitioners were given due opportunity to put their case to the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act and subsequently, the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.7018 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing notice, dated 31.01.2011, under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction … Continue reading
SRFAESI Act.=the first respondent-Bank is taking measures for taking possession/sale of the immovable property in pursuance of the possession notice dated 14.9.2010 issued under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act. When once the Tribunal is seized off the matter and there is no decision rendered on merits, it is not open for this Court to determine the rights of the parties. Hence, we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction inasmuch as there is no decision rendered by the Tribunal on merits.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1691 OF 2011 Between: Sri K. Rajendra Naidu S/o Sri Seshaiah Naidu ………….Petitioner AND The State Bank of India represented by its Authorized Officer and one another ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has … Continue reading
the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’).=The fact remains that the petitioner did not repay the outstanding dues of Rs.17.5 lakhs as on date and therefore, the impugned sale notices have been issued. Once the provisions of Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act have been followed, the petitioner cannot find fault with the subsequent events, as it is for the petitioner to deliver possession or the only course open to the bank is to seek assistance from either the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate. In the instant case, as the petitioner failed to deliver possession, the bank took possession of the property with the assistance of the District Collector by break opening the lock on 16.02.2009 under the cover of panchanama with regard to the inventory of immovable property, which also cannot be found fault with. – in view of the default, the respondent bank issued notice dated 08.09.2007, under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, which was acknowledged by the petitioner on 20.09.2007. It is stated that the petitioner did not give any explanation nor did he respond to the said notice and therefore, the possession notice dated 14.11.2008, under Section 13(4) read with Rule 8(1) was sent to the petitioner and he acknowledged the same on 20.11.2008. The possession notice dated 14.11.2008 was also published in Indian Express dated 25.12.2008. 4. The aforesaid averments have neither been contraverted nor the petitioner has filed any reply, therefore, it cannot be said that the procedure under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act has not been followed. Admittedly, the petitioner received Section 13(2) notice on 20.09.2007 and Section 13(4) notice was also received on 28.11.2008 but so far no action has been taken. If the procedure under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act is not followed, the course open to the petitioner is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. As the procedure under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act has become final and as the petitioner neither paid the debt amount nor handed over the possession, the bank has to take recourse to Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act it is open to the secured creditor to seek assistance of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate in taking possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, the District Collector being the District Magistrate his assistance was taken. Accordingly, the District Collector had passed orders dated 06.01.2009 and 19.01.2009 directing the SDPO, Amalapuram to provide necessary security while taking possession of the above said property.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 3786 of 2009 BETWEEN: Sagi Venkata Rama Gopala Krishnam Raju (Hindu) S/o. Narasimha Raju, R/o. … Continue reading
the maintainability of the Writ Petition for quashing criminal proceedings more so when charge sheets have already been filed and the cases have been taken cognizance by the competent criminal Court and (ii) the scope of interference of this Court with the criminal proceedings. The consequential issue to be considered is whether this Court’s interference is warranted to quash the criminal proceedings in the present case.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18428 of 2009 9-6-2011 M.B. Rajanikanth and another The State Inspector of Police,Visakhapatnam and others Counsel for the petitioners: Sri B. Chinnapa Reddy Counsel for respondents 1and2: Sri P.Kesava Rao Counsel for respondents 3-5:Sri Sampath Prabhakar for The petitioners, who are the former employees of the Vijaya … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 