IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Gumpu Sri Vishnu Teja, Vishnu Teja – Appellant
Versus
State of Bank of India – Respondent
ORDER :
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
Heard Mr. C. Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. C. Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. B.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s Pearl Law Associates for Respondents.
2. The case of petitioner is that he entered the service of respondent bank in 2009 as Assistant and subsequently, on 28-04-2013, he was transferred and posted as Junior Assistant at SBI, Ganesh Nagar Branch, Mahabubnagar, where he rendered dedicated service to respondent bank and as a token of his hard work, he was promoted as Senior Assistant and posted at SBI, Main Branch, Clock Tower, Mahabubnagar and directed him to report on 01-06-2018, after undergoing training, as such, he was relieved from Ganesh Nagar Branch on 20-05-2018 itself. The further case of petitioner is that on 15-12-2018, the Regional Manager, SBI, Mahabubnagar gave written report dated 05-11-2018 to SHO, I Town Police Station, Mahabubnagar against him and four (4) Gold Loan Customers of respondent bank alleging that eleven (11) gold bags are missing and they have played fraud on the bank by opening Fifteen (15) fictitious accounts during the period from January, 2016 to
Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank
Deputy General Manager v. Ajay Kumar Srivatsava
State Bank of India v. S.N. Goel
Balbir Chand v. Food Corporation of India
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.