President constitutes separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh from 1st January, 2019. Division of Judges between Andhra and Telangana
In pursuance of article 214 of the Constitution and the Order issued by the Supreme Court of India and in exercise of powers conferred under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, the President has constituted a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh from the 1st day of January, 2019
The name of the High Court would be the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, with the principal seat of such High Court at Amaravati in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Consequently, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall become the High Court for the State of Telangana.
As a result, the following Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh shall cease to be the Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, and shall become the Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati with effect from the 1st day of January, 2019.
(i) Justice Ramesh Ranganathan (presently working as Chief Justice of High Court of Uttarakhand)
(ii) Justice Chagari Praveen Kumar
(iii) Justice Sarasa Venkatanarayana Bhatti
(iv) Justice Akula Venkata Sesha Sai
(v) Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu (presently working on transfer as Judge, High Court of Kerala)
(vi) Justice Mandhata Seetharama Murti
(vii) Justice Upmaka Durga Prasad Rao
(viii) Justice Talluri Sunil Chowdary
(ix) Justice Mallavolu Satyanarayana Murthy
(x) Justice Gudiseva Shyam Prasad
(xi) Justice Kumari Javalakar Uma Devi
(xii) Justice Nakka Balayogi
(xiii) Justice Smt. Telaprolu Rajani
(xiv) Justice Durvasula Venkata Subramanya Suryanarayana Somayajulu
(xv) Justice Smt. Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi; and
(xvi) Justice Manthoj Ganga Rao,
Similarly, the following Judges shall cease to be the Judges of the common High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and shall become the Judges of the High Court for the State of Telangana with effect from the 1st day of January, 2019:
(i) Justice Puligoru Venkata Sanjay Kumar
(ii) Justice Mamidanna Satya Ratna Sri Ramachandra Rao
(iii) Justice Adavalli Rajasheker Reddy
(iv) Justice Ponugoti Naveen Rao
(v) Justice Challa Kodandaram Chowdary
(vi) Justice Bulusu Siva Sankara Rao
(vii) Justice Dr. Shameem Akther
(viii) Justice Potlapalli Keshava Rao
(ix) Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili
(x) Justice Todupunuri Amarnath Goud
Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat/text message was 25 lakh - ITAT…
Shareholders are only owners of the shares of the company therefore, income from properties earned by the company cannot be…
When approval for reassessment was granted by unauthorised authority, such jurisdictional error cannot be shielded by the law of limitation…
ITAT on presumption of bogus purchases ought to have remanded case to AO to reconsider the whole matter instead of…
Where proceedings u/s 153C are barred by limitation, AO can not reopen the case invoking section 148 and 148A of…
Corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC and banks to be recognized as financial creditors…