Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Plaintiff: k s n murthy · Page 1 of about 16 results (0.115 seconds)

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Feb 02 2007

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Nakka Lalitha and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-02-2007

Subject : Civil

Acts : Indian Railways Act

Reported in : 2008ACJ1821; 2007(4)ALD320

Advocate for Appellant : T.S. Venkataramana, Adv.

P.S. Narayana, J. 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the Union of India, represented by General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, being aggrieved by the decree and order made in O.A.A. No....

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 22 2004

Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its General Manager, S.C. Railway Vs. S. ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-22-2004

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Sections 3(1); Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123, 124 and 124A

Reported in : II(2005)ACC324; III(2005)ACC839; 2006ACJ2589; 2004(5)ALD361

Advocate for Appellant : T. Ramakrishana Rao, Adv.

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the order, dated 23-10-1998, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad in O.A.A. No. 11 of 1998.2. The respondents filed O.A.A.11 of 1998...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 27 2004

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Aruna Machine Tools Super B-iii

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-27-2004

Subject : Civil

Acts : Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 2(33), 65, 74, 106, 106(1) and 107; Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Sections 3 and 13(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 19 and 20; Sale of Goods Act, 1930

Reported in : 2005(2)ALD356; 2005(2)ALT391

Advocate for Appellant : B.H.R. Chowdary, SC for South Central Railway

V.V.S. Rao, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 ('the Tribunal Act', for brevity) by Union of India represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.2. The...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Jul 21 2004

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. K. Parvathamma and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-21-2004

Subject : Civil

Acts : Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 124A; Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Sections 13

Reported in : 2006ACJ892; AIR2005AP106

Advocate for Appellant : T. Ramakrishna Rao, Adv.

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the order, dated 28-9-1998 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Bench, Secunderabad, in O.A.A. No. 129 of...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 12 2010

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-12-2010

Subject : Excise

Advocate for Appellant : Shri K.S.N. Murthy, Manager for the appellant. Shri R.K. Mahajan, Authorized Representative (JCDR) for the respondent.

Per: P.G. Chacko: This application and the appeal are by a Central PSU. They have not obtained the requisite clearance from the Committee on Disputes. Their authorised representative submits that their request for clearance was turned...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 01 2010

Smt. O. Manjula Vs. M/S. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Feb-01-2010

Subject : Land Acquisition

Advocate for Appellant : Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. R. Nageswara Reddy. Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. K.S. N. Murthy

Oral order : ( as per Sri Syed Abdullah, Honble Member ) This appeal is filed against the order dated 15.6.2009 in CC 164/2009 passed by the DCF III, Hyderabad, where under, the complaint filed against...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 17 2007

Shri M. Nago Rao S/O Late Sri Laxman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represen ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

Decided on : Jul-17-2007

Subject : Land Acquisition

1. Heard Dr. (Shri) K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Counsel for the applicant; Shri G. Jaya Prakash Babu, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2; Shri B.N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the respondents...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 10 1987

M.H. Devendrappa Vs. Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corp ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-10-1987

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 19, 26, 29 and 30; Corporation Service Rules - Rule 22

Reported in : ILR1988KAR950; 1988(1)KarLJ136; (1988)IILLJ12Kant

1. Two main charges, amongst others, framed against the petitioner in a departmental enquiry were : '1. Mr. M. H. Devendrappa has written a letter dated 3rd June, 1977, directly to the Governor of Karnataka pointing...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 19 1987

Dr. R. Srinivasan Vs. Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Develo ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-19-1987

Subject : Service

Acts : Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited Service Rules, 1977 - Rules 14, 15, 16 and 17; Constitution of India - Article 14

Reported in : ILR1987KAR2567

Advocate for Appellant : M.S. Nagaraj, Adv.

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for a declaration that the communications bearing No. Secy. & AO 12792/83-84 dated 17-3-1984 (Annexure-K) & No. Per ADMN/1297/83-84...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 10 1999

A. Sundara Raman Vs. New Mangalore Port Trust, Panambur and Others

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-10-1999

Subject : Service

Acts : Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 - Sections 28 and 126; Constitution of India - Article 226 - Rule 13

Reported in : 1999(5)KarLJ311

Advocate for Appellant : Smt. Nalinin Ganesh for ;Sri Gururaj and ;Sri Krishna, Adv.

ORDER1. An employee has no right to promotion, but only has a right to be considered for the promotion is often quoted passage. This thinking equally applies to a selection post also. In the present case...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial