Back
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, SANJAY KUMAR, A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
Letter dated 6. 1. 2019 sent by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association represented by its President – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Central Secretariat – Respondent
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. On 28.01.2019, a Division Bench of this Court comprising two of us (Hon’ble The Chief Justice and ARR, J) passed the following order:
‘Learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh requested that the Chief Justice may consider exercising discretion under Section 40(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
2. We are of the considered view that it would be appropriate that these matters are considered by a Full Bench having regard to the importance of the issues involved.
3. We also notice that a Division Bench of this Court in T.Madan Mohan Reddy and B.R. Meena (2015(2) ALD 554 (DB) had considered certain attendant issues. We have also seen the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Uttaranchal v. Sehnaz Mirza (2008) 6 SCC 726) dealing with the situation that arose in Uttarakhand. Learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh also points out the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Allahabad v. State of U.P (2000 SCC Online All 1007 : (2001) 42 ALR 191).
4. Post these matters before the Full Bench.
Office is directed to place these matters before the Chief Justice for ta
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
