Telangana High Court
WP/16163/1999 of Uniford Laboratories, Vs Sudhakar Patnaik on 30 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16163 of 1999 Between: Uniford Laboratories, Rep. by its Managing Partner,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 16163 of 1999
Between:
Uniford Laboratories, Rep. by its Managing Partner, P.V.Suresh Babu, S/o.P.Mohan Rao, Nellore.
.....
PETITIONER
AND
1 Sudhakar Patnaik S/o.MNM Patnaik, R/o.49-24-18, Ramakrishna Nagar, R/o.49-24-18, Ramakrishna Nagar, Visakhapatnam. disd. for default as per court order dt:13.3.03 asagainst R1against R1
2 The Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam.
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY
The Court made the following:
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.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Prohibition to prohibitrespondent No.2 from proceeding with M.P.No.28 of 1997 filed byrespondent No.1, without deciding the objections filed by thepetitioner in I.A.No.161 of 1999.
Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioner.
A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was givenfour weeks time by this Court on 13.03.2003 for complying with the office objections regarding payment of batta subject to the conditionthat non-compliance with the objections within the permitted time wouldautomatically result in dismissal of the writ petition againstrespondent No.1. As admittedly the order, dated 13.03.2003, was notcomplied with, the writ petition stood dismissed against respondentNo.1 and the same was recorded in the file by the Registry on16.04.2003.
In view of the same, as writ petition was dismissed againstrespondent No.1, the cause of action does not survive forconsideration.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated02.08.1999, is vacated and WPMP.No.19946 of 1999 is dismissed.
Dated:30.12.2008GJ
________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J