Telangana HC directs petitioner to POSH appellate authority

HYDERABAD: The state government after a decade and more has constituted the appellate authority under the POSH (Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment) Act, 2013. The information was given by the special government pleader to the High Court. The information came in the context of a writ petition filed by Gummadavelly Rajasekhar, who had suffered an order under the POSH Act. The internal complaints committee of the labour department had passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner. He moved the High Court complaining that the POSH Act provided for an appeal to the Appellate Authority but no such authority was constituted. The petitioner contended that the termination of his employment was based on the recommendations of the internal complaints company of action and association of Telangana. The special government pleader said the government had appointed 08 labour court and industrial tribunal as the appellate authority. Justice P. Madhavi Devi permitted the petitioner to approach the newly constructed appellate authority.

HC junks writ on the company name

Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court declared that the regional director of the Union ministry of corporate affairs (MCA) was empowered under the Companies Act to alter a misleading name of a company even after 12 months. The judge dismissed a writ petition filed by GMR Spintex Pvt Ltd challenging an order of the MCA regional director, who directed the petitioner to remove the abbreviation ‘GMR’ from its name. According to the petitioner, this order was based on a complaint made by GMR Holding Private Limited, which had stated that the usage of the word amounted to ‘passing off’ its goods, services and repute. While the petitioner company was given permission to use ‘GMR’ in 2005, it was in 2007 that the private respondent made its objection. The petitioner contended that the MCA regional director was not a civil court to deal with infringement of copyright. The two companies operated in different sectors. The petitioner said ‘GMR’ was the name of the father of the company founder. Rejecting the plea that the application could not be entertained after one year, Justice Lakshman pointed out that there was no requirement under the Companies Act for the registrar to conduct a detailed inquiry before granting permission or allotting a name; an inquiry begins only on a complaint. He ruled that there is no provision under the Companies Act that made it mandatory for the registrar to deal with an application made within 12 months. The judge also relied on a judgment where the expression ‘Reddy’ was found to be non-generic. Justice Lakshman, accordingly, declared that there was no error in the order of the MCA regional director.

He pointed out that while the respondent company was established in 1978 the petitioner came into existence in 2006.

HC stalls advertainment hoarding demolition

Justice Chillakur Sumalatha of the Telangana High Court stalled the removal of advertisement boards on the Hyderabad-Gandipet road by the Narsingi municipality. The judge made the interim order while admitting the writ petition filed by Nava Nirman associates, which said that it had secured permission from the roads and Buildings department. However, the Narsingi municipality had issued notice requiring the petitioner to dislodge the poles on the ground that it had not granted permission.

Complaint on ‘Sardar Satram’ treated as PIL

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court directed the registry to number a PIL challenging the inaction of civic authorities in stopping illegal construction being carried out in ‘Sardar Satram’ at Jagtial.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice T. Vinod Kumar, was hearing a PIL filed by V. Suresh, district secretary of the Communist Party of India (CPI), alleging that the Arya Vysya sangham had illegally demolished a satram of the Kanyaka Parmeshwari temple. The temple was constructed behind the choultry and was without permission. Despite the Jagtial municipality commissioner rejecting their application for permission to build the satram, the sangham was proceeding with construction activities on public land.

Land Encroachment Act applies even to agency areas: HC

Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court declared that occupation of land by a non-tribal in a scheduled area amounted to depriving a tribal of prospective allotment of the land. He ruled that the government was empowered to exercise its powers under the Land Encroachment Act (LEA), 1905 to evict such occupants. The judge dismissed a writ petition filed by Pingli Pulliah challenging the action against him for the recovery of land at Gudur village of Mahbubabad district in the agency area. The petitioner said that he had purchased the land in 1968. He said land in the scheduled areas is governed by the Land Transfer Regulation (LTR) and not the Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Justice Lakshman pointed out that general laws are excluded from operation in agency areas by a specified notification; there was no such notification with regard to the LEA. Justice Lakshman further pointed out the ban on the transfer of land in scheduled areas in favour of non-tribals. He said that LEA was a procedural law while the LTR was substantive law, which would prevail.