|
|
Database updates
Judgments
Omeshwar Baldwa vs Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited (Scheduled Bank, Hyderabad)
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 20 Oct 2009]
|
Sree Manasa Enterprises vs Commercial Tax Officer, Nampally, Hyderabad
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 08 Oct 2009]
|
Ahmed Ehtesham Kawkab vs Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Commerce), Secretary , New Delhi and Others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 18 Sep 2009]
|
Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs A. Saraswathi and Others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 15 Sep 2009]
|
Ch. Krishnaiah vs Ch. Prasada Rao
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 14 Sep 2009]
|
Gandipally Srinivas vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 11 Sep 2009]
|
Sravan Dall Mill Private Limited, Managing Director vs Central Bank of India, Chief Manager, Corporate Finance Branch, Hyderabad and Another
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 11 Sep 2009]
|
Battula Veeraswamy vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Hyderabad and Others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 11 Sep 2009]
|
DCL Maritech Limited vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore and Another
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 11 Sep 2009]
|
S. Babu Saheb @ Babu vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Public Prosecutor, Proh. and Excise Ps., Srikalahasti, Hyderabad
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 11 Sep 2009]
|
A. Ramaiah vs Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Presiding Officer, Godavarikhani and Another
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 11 Sep 2009]
|
Tummalapalli Krishna Murthy Vishranthi Bhavanam @ Sri Tummallapalli, Founder Trustee, Tummalapalli Naga Siva Venkata Satya Krishna Murthy, West Godavari vs District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru and Another
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 10 Sep 2009]
|
Dr. J. Kedareswari vs Union of India, Secretary, Department of Culture, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, New Delhi and Another
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 07 Sep 2009]
|
K. B. K. Rao vs Chairman and Managing Director, Mumbai and Others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 07 Sep 2009]
|
Kitti Steels Limited, Managing Director, H. S. Sethi, Hyderabad vs Sanghi Industries Limited, Managing Director, Ravi Sanghi, Hyderabad
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 03 Sep 2009]
Corporate - Companies Act, 1956 ss. 433(e), 434(1)(a), 434(1)(c) and 439(1)(b), - Company (Court) Rules, 1959, rules, 3, 4, 6 and 95 - Petitioner is engaged in the business of constructors, fabricators, engineers, consultants and manufacturing of heavy machinery, respondent is a company engaged in manufacturing and marketing clinker and cement products, marketed in India and outside - Petitioner alleges that respondent failed to pay the amounts after receiving notice and therefore should be wound up - Company Petition was not filed in accordance with Rule 25 and petitioner failed to plead that respondent is unable to pay its debts and therefore, Company Petition would not lie - (i) Whether the appeal filed by respondent before this Court, which is pending adjudication, bars the winding up petition u/s 433(e)- Held, s. 443(2) empowers Court to refuse to make an order of winding up, if it is of opinion that some other remedy is available to petitioner and that petitioner is acting unreasonably in seeking to have the company wound up in response to pursuing other remedy, so winding up the petitioner company u/s 433(e) would not lie - (ii) Whether the Company Petition has to be rejected for non-compliance with Rule 95 of the Rules and s. 434(1)(c) of the Act - Held, Rules 3 and 4 read with Rule 6 of Company (Court) Rules, 1959, all applications and petitions filed under the Act, as far as possible, must comply with Rules adopting various forms prescribed therein, wherever applicable - Rule 95 lays down that a petition for winding up of a company shall be in Form No.45, 46 or 47, as the case may be, with such variations, as the circumstances may require - (iii) Whether petitioner has, prima facie, made out the case for winding up and whether the defense pleaded by the respondent that debt is bonafide disputed, has any substance - Held, petition for winding up is not a substitute for accepted mode of recovering debt by way of suit - Whenever the company disputes debt, same does not preclude the Court from ordering winding up if it is shown that dispute raised by company regarding debt is not bonafide - Petition dismissed.
|
Kitti Steels Limited, Managing Director, H. S. Sethi, Hyderabad vs Sanghi Industries Limited, Managing Director, Ravi Sanghi, Hyderabad
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 03 Sep 2009]
Corporate - Companies Act, 1956 ss. 433(e), 434(1)(a), 434(1)(c) and 439(1)(b), - Company (Court) Rules, 1959, rules, 3, 4, 6 and 95 - Petitioner is engaged in the business of constructors, fabricators, engineers, consultants and manufacturing of heavy machinery, respondent is a company engaged in manufacturing and marketing clinker and cement products, marketed in India and outside - Petitioner alleges that respondent failed to pay the amounts after receiving notice and therefore should be wound up - Company Petition was not filed in accordance with Rule 25 and petitioner failed to plead that respondent is unable to pay its debts and therefore, Company Petition would not lie - (i) Whether the appeal filed by respondent before this Court, which is pending adjudication, bars the winding up petition u/s 433(e)- Held, s. 443(2) empowers Court to refuse to make an order of winding up, if it is of opinion that some other remedy is available to petitioner and that petitioner is acting unreasonably in seeking to have the company wound up in response to pursuing other remedy, so winding up the petitioner company u/s 433(e) would not lie - (ii) Whether the Company Petition has to be rejected for non-compliance with Rule 95 of the Rules and s. 434(1)(c) of the Act - Held, Rules 3 and 4 read with Rule 6 of Company (Court) Rules, 1959, all applications and petitions filed under the Act, as far as possible, must comply with Rules adopting various forms prescribed therein, wherever applicable - Rule 95 lays down that a petition for winding up of a company shall be in Form No.45, 46 or 47, as the case may be, with such variations, as the circumstances may require - (iii) Whether petitioner has, prima facie, made out the case for winding up and whether the defense pleaded by the respondent that debt is bonafide disputed, has any substance - Held, petition for winding up is not a substitute for accepted mode of recovering debt by way of suit - Whenever the company disputes debt, same does not preclude the Court from ordering winding up if it is shown that dispute raised by company regarding debt is not bonafide - Petition dismissed.
|
Konidena Venkata Naga Durga Prasad @ Prasad vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 03 Sep 2009]
|
K. Rajasekhar vs Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Apsrtc, Hyderabad and Another
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 03 Sep 2009]
Administrative - Petitioner applied for the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee) as Departmental candidate - Petitioner challenged his non-selection under the Departmental quota as arbitrary and illegal - Held, directions issued to the Corporation to consider the candidature of the petitioner, who is admittedly eligible to be called for interview as per the order of the merit, for appointment against the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee) reserved for OC-Men under Departmental quota subject to his selection by the Selection Committee - Petition disposed of.
|
Maddela Yadaiah Goud vs Principal Secretary For Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad and Others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 03 Sep 2009]
|
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and Others vs M. Pratimareddy and Others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 03 Sep 2009]
|
K. Rajasekhar vs Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Apsrtc, Hyderabad and Another
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 03 Sep 2009]
Administrative - Petitioner applied for the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee) as Departmental candidate - Petitioner challenged his non-selection under the Departmental quota as arbitrary and illegal - Held, directions issued to the Corporation to consider the candidature of the petitioner, who is admittedly eligible to be called for interview as per the order of the merit, for appointment against the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee) reserved for OC-Men under Departmental quota subject to his selection by the Selection Committee - Petition disposed of.
|
Karthik Service Station, Ambi Sambaraju, Indian Oil Dealer, Warangal vs Official Liquidator, A. P. S. S. Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad and Others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 03 Sep 2009]
|
Marella Chalama Reddy and Others vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 03 Sep 2009]
|
B. V. R. Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Food Inspector, Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 02 Sep 2009]
Health & Drug - Socio-Economic - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, s. 2(v) - Petition filed for determining whether ice blocks comes within the definition of food u/s 2(v) of the Act or not? - Held, mere conversion of water into ice will not bring ice within the purview of the Act in view of the specific exclusion of water from the definition of food u/s 2(v) - Petition allowed.
|
B. V. R. Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Food Inspector, Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 02 Sep 2009]
Health & Drug - Socio-Economic - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, s. 2(v) - Petition filed for determining whether ice blocks comes within the definition of food u/s 2(v) of the Act or not? - Held, mere conversion of water into ice will not bring ice within the purview of the Act in view of the specific exclusion of water from the definition of food u/s 2(v) - Petition allowed.
|
|