Andhra Pradesh Court December 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
L. Lalitha Kumari Vs. Dr. M. Thippe Swamy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD157
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The first respondent in the election petition, filed these four applications. (1) E.A. No. 1092 of 2004 is filed under Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C, read with, Section 83 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for short 'R.P. Act') to reject the election petition. (2) E.A. No. 1093 of 2004 is filed under Sections 83 and 87 of the R.P. Act, read with, Section 151 C.P.C., and Rule 16 of Order VI C.P.C, to strike out Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the election petition. (3) In E.A. No. 1094 of 2004 filed under Section 83 of the R.P. Act, the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to file written statement, after disposal of the applications filed by her. (4) E.A. No. 1192 of 2004 is filed under Section 86(i), read with, Section 81(3) of the R.P. Act for dismissal of the election petition. While the affidavit for the first three applications is common, a separate affidavit is filed in support of the fourth application.2. The first respondent in these applications,...
B. Chandramouli Vs. General Manager, District Co-operative Central Ban ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALT335
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is employed as Assistant General Manager in the District Co-operative Central Bank, Medak. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, and he was placed under suspension. A charge- sheet was issued, and an enquiry officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 1-10-2004, holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved. The respondent, however, issued a show cause notice through proceedings dated 19-11-2004, by observing that, he differs with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, and treats the same as having been proved. The petitioner was required to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The same is challenged in this writ petition.2. Sri R.V. Nagabhushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and settled principles of law. He also submits that not being the appointing authority, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›