Telangana High Court
WP/24753/2007 of S.M.Sikindar Basha Vs Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swmay Var Devasthanam on 27 December 2007
OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.24753 of 2007 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 02) 15-06- 2010 CVNR, J WVMP.No.1525 of 2008 in/& WPMP.No.31987 of 2007 WVMP.No.1525 of 2008 is filed to vacate interim order, dated 20-11-2007, in WPMP.No.31987 of 2007,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD
MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.24753 of 2007
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL.DATE
NO.
ORDER
OFFICENOTE
02)15-06-CVNR, J2010WVMP.No.1525 of 2008 in/& WPMP.No.31987 of 2007
WVMP.No.1525 of 2008 is filed to vacateinterim order, dated 20-11-2007, inWPMP.No.31987 of 2007, whereby this Courtdirected the respondents in the Writ Petition torestore power supply to the writ petitioner subject toits paying 50% of the provisional assessmentamount.
At the hearing, it is submitted by the learnedCounsel for the writ petitioner and not disputed bythe learned Standing Counsel for the respondentsthat the above-mentioned condition has beencomplied with by the petitioner.
I n view of the same, I find balance ofconvenience in favour of the petitioner to continuethe interim order pending the Writ Petition.
WVMP and WPMP are accordingly
disposed of.
lur
______________________
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J
SL.DATENO.
ORDER
BN, J & GC, J
(Contd…)
The learned single Judge found thatrespondents 2 to 4 in the Writ Petitionwere not eligible to be promoted and theyhad been promoted although they wereineligible.
Respondents 2 to 4 have, now, filedan appeal with a delay of 164 days.Let OFFICENOTE
SL.NO.
DATEattempt to defeat the judgment of thisORDERCourt in avoiding to consider the case ofthe writ petitioner for promotion. Therelevant portion of this letter reads asunder:
‘Once the vacanciesa r e cleared, we areinterested to consider thecase of Mr.D.HarinathaReddy, as it was submittedto the Court. Hence, we request you to put forth (P.T.O.,)
BN, J & GC, J
(Contd…)
the above information beforet h e Court and requestlearned Judge to give timeup to March, 2006. Werequest you to use yourgood office to appraise theCourt and to protect Bank’sinterest’.
This letter merely says that once thevacancies were cleared, the Bank wasinterested to consider the case. Itnowhere shows any urgency to implementthe order of the Court. Vacancies can becleared after decade or two decades. Therefore, we feel that the appellant in thisappeal is, prima facie, in Contempt of thisCourt.
Issue notice to the appellant-SriP.Gopala Krishna, Chairman, SriVenkateswara Grameena Bank, Chittoor,as to why Contempt Proceedings be notinitiated against him. He shall file counterwithin two weeks and shall remain presenton the next date of hearing.
List on 21-03-2006.
______________
OFFICENOTE
SL.DATENO.NO.
07-03-ORDER
ORDER
2006
lur
OFFICENOTE
SL.DATENO.NO.
ORDER
BN, J & SAR, JApplication No.122 of 2006
BN, J & SAR, J
Application No.122 of 2006
This application has been filed byrespondent No.3-applicant seekingextension of time and also seeking prayerthat the respondents should give a set offfo r Rs.93,31,706/- (Rupees ninety threelakhs thirty one thousand seven hundredand six only) which according to him arethe losses suffered by him.
That is a matter, which will have tobe gone into before taking a decision onthe question whether the petitionersuffered any losses and if so, whether heis entitled to recover those losses in theseproceedings. Therefore, at this stage, wecannot allow the prayer of the applicantthat he should be permitted to deposit onlyRs2,06,68,294/- (Rupees two crores sixlakhs sixty eight thousand two hundredand ninety four only) and not Rs.3.17crores.
OFFICENOTE
SL.DATENO.
At this stage, the learned seniorORDERCounsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has noobjection if the property is put to freshauction, but it should not be taken asadjudication of his claim to thecompensation and losses.
BN, J & SAR, J
(Contd…)
This issue will be decided after acounter is filed to the present application.
As far as the extension of time isconcerned, the request of the applicant isrejected and the official liquidator is atliberty to put the property to fresh auctionas the applicant has also conceded thatfresh auction may be allowed. Theapplicant also will be entitled to participatein the fresh auction. The Earned MoneyDeposit (EMD) already paid by theapplicant to the extent of Rs.17 lakhs,when the property was put to auctionearlier, may be returned to the applicant.
______________
03-02-2006
OFFICENOTE
SL.DATENO.
ORDER
OFFICENOTE
SL.DATENO.
ORDER
OFFICENOTE
SL.DATENO.
ORDER
OFFICENOTE
SL.DATENO.
ORDER
OFFICENOTE