Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Kum. Shashikala And Four Others vs Smt. Babita Sharma And Three Others on 2 May, 2018

P.Ashok Gajapathi Raju, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 14 June, 2021

In this context, on behalf of the petitioners, Sri D.V.Seetha Rama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance in Kum.SHASHIKALA AND OTHERS v. SMT.BABITA SHARMA AND OTHERS10. Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel on behalf of the 5th respondent also relied on this ruling. In para 33(a), it is stated in this respect upon referring the effect of various provisions of Act 30 of 1987 particularly of Chapter III, as under:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - M V Ramana - Full Document

P.Ananthachary, Died As Per Lrs. vs The Assistant Commissioner on 10 August, 2022

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal without going into the merits of the application filed by the appellants herein dismissed the case on the basis of the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in C.M.A.No.590 of 2012, and in view of the subsequent order referred above, there is a necessity for reconsideration of the application, thereby sought for remanding the matter to the Tribunal.
Telangana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P Anathacharuy vs The Assitant Comissionwer on 10 August, 2022

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal without going into the merits of the application filed by the appellants herein dismissed the case on the basis of the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in C.M.A.No.590 of 2012, and in view of the subsequent order referred above, there is a necessity for reconsideration of the application, thereby sought for remanding the matter to the Tribunal.
Telangana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kosgi Nammula Kanki Reddy And 38 Others vs The Deputy Commissioner And 4 Others on 14 September, 2022

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the said order in C.M.A.No.590 of 2012 was discussed in a subsequent C.R.P., between "Kum.Shashikala and 3 SSRN, J CMA.No.813 of 2019 others vs. Smt.Babita Sharma and Others". The learned counsel has submitted that this Court gave a finding in the subsequent C.R.P.No.4596 of 2017 to the effect that the judgment referred in C.M.A.No.590 of 2012 is hit by Sub-Silentio Principle and there is no bar for any legal heir of the founder or member of the family of the founder of any institute even existing since prior to Act 30/1987 came into force and even not recognized earlier to, to make a claim of entitlement to act as one of the Trustees of the institutions. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the appellants in view of the subsequent judgment referred above the order of Tribunal based on the order in C.M.A.No.590 of 2012 need to be re- considered.
Telangana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1