Aspirant tells Hyderabad High Court, cop test ignored ST woman quota
Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court directed the government and the State Level Police Recruitment Board to spell out their stand on a petition moved by a woman belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community alleging that reservations for women were not implemented in the recent recruitment of police constables.
Justice A. Ramalingeswara Rao was dealing with the petition by Ms Kethavath Kavitha, a city resident, who stated that though she had secured 102 marks, her candidature was not considered for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee under Armed Reserved category either in the ST quota or in the special category reservation for children of police personnel.
She said candidates who had secured lower marks than her were selected in the general category and under various quotas. The judge granted a week to the respondents to file their counter affidavits.
Sibal argues for Agri Gold former head
Supreme Court senior counsel Kapil Sibal on Friday urged the Hyderabad High Court to quash the charges against A. Seetha Rama Rao, chairman of the Agri Gold Group of Companies.
Arguing before Justice A. Shankar Narayana in three separate petitions filed by Seetha Rama Rao, Mr Sibal said the official had resigned from the board of directors of the company in 2011 and the alleged fraud took place in 2014.
Citing several judgments of the Supreme Court, Mr Sibal said charging the petitioner with criminal breach of trust and cheating was illegal. After AP public prosecutor P. Venkateswarlu sought time, the judge posted the case to April 25.
Small firms win case on brand names
The Hyderabad High Court has ruled that the benefit of excise tax exemption to a smallscale industry cannot be denied on the ground that it was using a brand name when it was not owned by any person or company and was in freehold.
A division bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice J. Uma Devi was allowing appeals by Maheshwari Industries and Annapurna Indus-tries challenging the action of the Central Excise in denying the benefit of the exemption notification No.8/2003, dated March 1, 2003 and imposing penalty.
The Centre had issued the notification exempting smallscale units with less than '1 crore turnover from Excise.
The appellants said they were manufacturing plastic-moulded chairs by purchasing moulds with brand names of Maniyar, Rose Kamal, Lal Kamal. The Central Excise declared that they are not entitled to exemption as they are engaged in the manufacture and sale of branded items.
After perusing the explanation provided under the Notification, it was clear that if certain names are available in the market freehold for anyone to use, the industry cannot be taken to be manufacturing goods under the brand name of some other manufacturer. The bench set aside the tax demands raised against the appellants.
