A V Sundaram Books Pdf
B.Sc (Horticulture)Horticulture PDF Books ware material is prepared as per ICAR approved syllabus for the benefit of under-graduate students already enrolled in Indian Agricultural Universities.List of ICAR eCourse for HorticultureS.No.Course TitleAuthor(s) NamePagesDownload Link1ApicultureDr. Gupta782Breeding and Seed Production of Ornamental CropsDr. YC Gupta106Download3Breeding of fruit and Plantation CropsDr. Auxcilia & Dr.
Shabha3454Breeding of Vegetable & Tuber and spice cropsDr. Paramaguru & Dr. Shobha–Coming Soon5Commercial FloricultureDr. B.Hemla Naik–Coming Soon6Diseases of Fruit Plantation & Medicinal & Aromatic CropsDr. Sanath Kumar–Coming Soon7Diseases of Vegetable & Ornamental and spice CropsDr. Gupta–Coming Soon8Elementary Plant Biochemistry and BiotechnologyDr. Manikanda Boopathi & Dr.
The court thereby essentially determined that any order vesting “superior” 4 NICAISE V. SUNDARAM Opinion of the Court decision-making authority in one parent necessarily establishes sole legal decision-making authority.1 ¶10 That interpretation conflicts with the statutory scheme as well as precedent and practice. A V Sundaram.
Govindaraju–Coming Soon9Elementary statistics and computer applicationTh. Pangayar Selvi & Mrs. Anandhi–Coming Soon10Environmental ScienceDr. Prasanth Rajan31911Farm Power and MachineryDr. Desai15412Fundamentals of EntomologyDr. Revanna Revannanavar–Coming Soon13Fundamentals of Extension EducationMr.
A V Sundaram Books Pdf List
Krishnamurthy–Coming Soon14Fundamentals of Food TechnologyDr. Malathi–Coming Soon15Fundamentals of HortcultureDr.
Swamy8516Fundamentals of Plant pathologyDr. Sharma21917Fundamentals of Soil ScienceDr. Tripathi–Coming Soon18Growth and Development of Hotriculture CropsDr. Durga Devi–Coming Soon19Horti-Business ManagementDr. Sivakumar21920Insect Pests of Fruit Plantation & Medicinal & Aromatic CropsDr. Kalyana Sundaram–Coming Soon21Insect Pests of Vegetable Ornamental & Spice CropsDr.
PL Sharma–Coming Soon22Introduction to Major Field CropsDr. Janardhan21723Introductory Agro-ForestryDr. Pant–Coming Soon24Introductory Crop PhysiologyDr. Mukesh L Chavan–Coming Soon25Introductory EconomicsDr. Sharma–Coming Soon26Introductory Microbiology with PracticalsDr. Gurumurthy11927Medicinal and Aromatic CropsDr. Rajamani & Dr.
Nalina–Coming Soon28Mushroom CultureDr. Thapa9229Nematode pests of Hort. Crops & their managementDr. (Mrs) Anju S Khanna–Coming Soon30Orchard managementDr. Sharma–Coming Soon31Organic FarmingDr. Anand B Masthihole–Coming Soon32Ornamental HotricultureDr. Ganga–Coming Soon33Plantation CropsDr.
Hegde–Coming Soon34Post Harvest Management of Horticultural CropsDr. Krishna–Coming Soon35Potato and Tuber cropsDr. Ravindra Mulge–Coming Soon36Principles of Genetics and CytogeneticsDr. Meenakshi Ganesan–Coming Soon37Principles of Landscape GardeningDr.
Hemla Naik & Mr. Chandrashekhar9338Principles of Plant BreedingDr. Jagadeesh–Coming Soon39Processing of Horticulture cropsDr. C Sharma–Coming Soon40Seed Production of Vegetable, Tuber and Spice CropsDr. P.Geetha Rani40541Soil and plant analysisDr.
Youtube Av Sundaram
Vadivel–Coming Soon42Soil Fertility & Nutrient ManagementDr. Thippeshappa–Coming Soon43Spices and CondimentsDr. Venkatesha & Dr. Raviraja Shetty. G–Coming Soon44Structural grammar & Spoken English(NC)Dr. Sundararajan & Mrs. Shnmugapriya–Coming Soon45Temperate FruitsDr.
Chandel–Coming Soon46Temperate VegetablesDr. Shukla–Coming Soon47Tropical and Subtropical FruitsDr. Kulapati Hipparagi–Coming Soon48Tropical and Subtropical VegetablesDr. Srinivasa–Coming Soon49Water Management in Horticultural CropsDr.
Meyyazhagan–Coming Soon50Weed Management in Horticulture CropsDr.
The Supreme Court vacated a potion of the court of appeals’ opinion and affirmed the family court’s order giving Father final legal decision-making authority over certain issues regarding the parties' child, holding that the words “final” and “sole” have different meanings in the context of a family court’s award of joint legal decision-making that gives one parent final legal decision-making authority over certain matters.The court of appeals determined that an award of joint legal decision-making that gives authority to one parent is, in essence, an award of sole legal decision-making. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that joint legal decision-making with final decision-making authority and sole legal decision-making authority are separate and distinct categories. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN RE THE MATTER OF: ROBERT J. NICAISE, JR., Petitioner/Appellee, v. APARNA SUNDARAM, Respondent/Appellant. CV-18-0089-PR Filed January 17, 2019 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable Theodore Campagnolo, Judge Nos.
FC2014-094949 and FC2014-095056 (Consolidated) AFFIRMED Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One 244 Ariz. 2018) VACATED IN PART COUNSEL: Law Office of Karla L. Calahan, P.C., Karla L.
Calahan (argued), Phoenix, Attorneys for Petitioner/Appellee Rader, Sheldon & Stoutner, PLLC, Diana I. Rader (argued), Marc R. Grant, Jr., Phoenix, Attorneys for Respondent/Appellant NICAISE V. SUNDARAM Opinion of the Court JUSTICE BOLICK authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL, and JUSTICES PELANDER, TIMMER, GOULD, and LOPEZ joined. JUSTICE BOLICK, opinion of the Court: ¶1 This case concerns whether a family court’s award of joint legal decision-making that gives one parent final legal decision-making authority over certain matters necessarily gives that parent sole legal decision-making authority.
We hold that final and sole have different meanings in this context. BACKGROUND ¶2 This question arises in the context of a family law dispute, which the family court aptly described as “a troubling and difficult case since its inception in September 2014,” between the parents of a now eightyear-old girl. In a fifty-eight-page ruling, the court recounted the case history in painstaking detail, including allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, and medical neglect of the child.
Based on extensive findings, including those addressing the child’s best interests, the court made numerous orders regarding the parents’ respective rights going forward. ¶3 Before us is the family court’s order regarding legal decisionmaking authority. The court found that it was in the child’s best interests 2 NICAISE V. SUNDARAM Opinion of the Court to award joint legal decision-making to Mother and Father. The court ordered, in relevant part, as follows: Parental decisions shall be required for major issues in raising the child and in meeting on-going needs.
When they arise, each parent shall give good faith consideration to the views of the other and put forth best efforts to reach a consensus decision. If they cannot agree after making a good faith effort to reach an agreement, Father shall have the ability to make the final decision as to medical, mental health, dental, and therapy issues. The court made other orders that are not before us regarding choice-ofschool decisions.
¶4 The court of appeals affirmed some orders, vacated others, and remanded. Sundaram, 244 Ariz. 272, 282 ¶ 35 (App. However, although the issue was neither raised nor briefed by the parties, the court determined that by giving Father final legal decision-making authority over medical, mental-health, dental, and therapy issues, the family court “effectively created orders for sole legal decision-making, carved out from a general order for joint legal decision-making.” Id. Construing A.R.S. § 25-401(2), the court determined that “an award of joint legal decision-making that gives final authority to one parent is, in reality, an award of sole legal decision-making.
Regardless of the labels used in a decree, when one parent has the final say, that parent’s rights are superior and the authority therefore is not joint as a matter of law.” Id. ¶5 Mother sought review only of this portion of the court of appeals’ opinion. Whether a parent’s right to make a final decision following consultation converts joint into sole legal decision-making authority is an issue of first impression with statewide significance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article 6, section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution. SUNDARAM Opinion of the Court II. DISCUSSION ¶6 This case presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.
Mr. A.v. Sundaram Consultation
State ex rel. Pandola, 243 Ariz.
418, 419 ¶ 6 (2018). ¶7 We granted review on three questions presented by Mother: (1) whether the court of appeals’ sua sponte determination to convert joint legal decision-making into Father’s sole decision-making authority violated Mother’s due process rights; (2) whether in so doing the court erred by not remanding the matter to the family court; and (3) whether the court of appeals’ effective award of sole legal decision-making authority over certain matters to Father conflicts with the family court’s findings relating to the child’s best interests.
Because we conclude that the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in equating final legal decision-making authority over certain matters as an award of sole legal decision-making, we need not reach those issues. ¶8 Section 25-401 sets forth definitions covering legal decisionmaking and parenting time. The Supreme Court vacated a potion of the court of appeals’ opinion and affirmed the family court’s order giving Father final legal decision-making authority over certain issues, holding that the words “final” and “sole” have different meanings in the context of a family court’s award of joint legal decision-making that gives one parent final legal decision-making authority over certain matters.Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.