Andhra Pradesh Court January 2006 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.
A. Sanjasi Rao Vs. Leather Industries Development Corporation of Andhr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD311; 2006(5)ALT398
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was working as Manager (P&C;) in the Leather Industries Development Corporation Limited, the 1st respondent herein. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 31-8-2005, relieving the petitioner from service, with effect from that date, on the petitioner attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. However, an observation was made to the effect that, since certain allegations are pending against him, the enquiry is going on, and the final settlement of his retirement benefits would be done, after finalisation of the enquiry. The petitioner challenges the same. He contends that no charge memo was issued, while he was in service. It is also urged that in case the respondents intended to proceed against him, it was open to them, only after extending the service of the petitioner, beyond the age of superannuation.2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, a reference is made, to certain general allegations against the petitioner. It...
K.K. Valli Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Vs. District Colle ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD452
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society in West Godavari District. The third respondent herein was employed as a Secretary in the Society. Through proceedings, dated 25.7.2002, the petitioner terminated the services of the third respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the third respondent preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The appeal was allowed through order, dated 22.9.2005 by the first respondent and the third respondent was directed to be reinstated without any consequential and incidental benefits. The second respondent, in turn, passed a consequential order, dated 17.10.2005, directing the petitioner to reinstate the third respondent with a semblance of warning. The same is challenged by the petitioner.2. Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent did not give proper opportunity to the petitioner, before the impugned order was passed. She also contends that the form of ...
K.V.S.N.V. Prasad and anr. Vs. Public Club and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP206; 2006(2)ALD727
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The petitioners filed the present civil revision petition questioning the order made in a memo in LA. No. 408/2004 in O.S. No. 155/2004 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Huzumagar dated 15-12-2005.2. Sri Anantha Krishna, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners would maintain that no doubt the order made appointing Commissioner in I.A. No. 498/2004 in O.S. No. 155/2004 had attained finality and the same was not questioned. But however when the impracticability of the execution of the warrant had been expressed the question of reentrustment would not arise and that too on a memo such order cannot be made for the reason that it will amount to appointing a second Commissioner inasmuch as a different purpose had been mentioned while making the re-entrustment of the warrant. The learned Counsel made elaborate submissions pointing out the relevant portions of the order both made in LA. No. 408/2004 in O.S. No. 155/2004 initially and subsequent there...
Vadala Vinay Kumar Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)530; 2006CriLJ1710
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. The appellant herein was tried in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1996, by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar, Hyderabad, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'IPC'). The learned Judge, having scanned the entire evidence on record, acquitted the appellant of the charge punishable under Section 306, IPC, but found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. As against the conviction, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal.2. The substance of the charges, framed against the appellant by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, are as follows:That you the accused being the husband of the deceased namely, Smt. Vanaja, subsequent to 1995, subjecte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›