Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing S. Ramadas vs The Subordinate Judge And Others on 9 July, 1992

Hyderabad District Co-Operative ... vs Co-Operative Tribunal, Hyderabad And ... on 7 September, 2001

In S.Ramdas v. Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem and others, and in S.Rama Subba Rao v. President, Kaikaluru Irrigation and Power Department, Sub-Divisional Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, 1994 (I) APLJ 200, Justice B. Subhashan Reddy (as the then was) took the view that the enquiry under Section 60 of the Act should be an elaborate enquiry, like an enquiry by the Civil Court in a original proceeding.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M. Sivudu Naidu vs Deputy Registrar Of Co-Op. Societies ... on 10 March, 2003

In this connection, it is to be noted that the Division Bench of this court, having been in agreement with the earlier judgments rendered by the learned single Judge of this court in S. Ramadas v. Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem and Ors., and S. Rama Subba Rao v. President, Kaikaluru Irrigation and Power Department Sub-Divisional Employee's Co-operative Credit Society Limited, observed that the enquiry under Section 51 is only administrative in nature, and if the Registrar prima facie is satisfied of the irregularities on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, he may initiate surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Act; that the person against whom such a report is sent under Section 52, has no opportunity to squarely meet the allegations at that stage and that there is no opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses from whom statements were recorded and that there is no opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence. It was further observed by the Division Bench of this court that Section 60 clearly contemplates an opportunity being given to the delinquent by making a representation to explain his stand and allow him to participate in the enquiry before passing the final order. This is a valuable right given to the delinquent, which cannot be brushed aside in a routine manner.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hyderabad District Co-Operative ... vs Co-Operative Tribunal And Ors. on 7 September, 2001

In S. Ramdas v. Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem and Ors. , and in S. Rama Subba Rao v. President, Kaikaluru Irrigation and Power Department, Sub-Divisional Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited 1994(1) APLJ 200, Justice B. Subhashan Reddy (as the then was) took the view that the enquiry under Section 60 of the Act should be an elaborate enquiry, like an enquiry by the Civil Court in a original proceeding.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Muthyala Venkateswara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 March, 2024

53) In view of the law laid down in the said judgment, the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act is only an administrative enquiry for the satisfaction of the Registrar as to whether surcharge proceedings under Section 60 have to be initiated or not. Once the proceedings under Section 60 of the Act are initiated, the enquiry thereof should be akin to Civil Court enquiry as the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred expressly in view of Section 121 of the Act. Further, ingredients of 1 AIR 1993 AP 6 44 VS,J wps_15893_2023 and batch Section 60 of the Act cannot be attributed to the petitioner as no allegations are made against him by the inquiry officer in the inquiry report. In the present case, no independent inquiry was conducted, but straightaway impugned attachment order was passed.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bantu Vijaya Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 March, 2024

53) In view of the law laid down in the said judgment, the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act is only an administrative enquiry for the satisfaction of the Registrar as to whether surcharge proceedings under Section 60 have to be initiated or not. Once the proceedings under Section 60 of the Act are initiated, the enquiry thereof should be akin to Civil Court enquiry as the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred expressly in view of Section 121 of the Act. Further, ingredients of 1 AIR 1993 AP 6 44 VS,J wps_15893_2023 and batch Section 60 of the Act cannot be attributed to the petitioner as no allegations are made against him by the inquiry officer in the inquiry report. In the present case, no independent inquiry was conducted, but straightaway impugned attachment order was passed.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Attili Soma Sekhar vs The State Of Ap on 27 March, 2024

53) In view of the law laid down in the said judgment, the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act is only an administrative enquiry for the satisfaction of the Registrar as to whether surcharge proceedings under Section 60 have to be initiated or not. Once the proceedings under Section 60 of the Act are initiated, the enquiry thereof should be akin to Civil Court enquiry as the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred expressly in view of Section 121 of the Act. Further, ingredients of 1 AIR 1993 AP 6 44 VS,J wps_15893_2023 and batch Section 60 of the Act cannot be attributed to the petitioner as no allegations are made against him by the inquiry officer in the inquiry report. In the present case, no independent inquiry was conducted, but straightaway impugned attachment order was passed.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next