Telangana High Court
WP/28618/2010 of Smt. N.R. Indira, Vs The Secretary, Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, on 29 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28618 of 2010 Date: 29.12.2010 Between: Smt. N.R. Indira ..... Petitioner AND The Secretary, Cooperative Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.28618 of 2010
Between:
Date: 29.12.2010
Smt. N.R. Indira
AND
..... Petitioner
The Secretary, Cooperative Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and others
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Assistant Government Pleader forCooperation Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela 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 Mandamus to set aside the orderdated 03.09.2010 in I.A.No.258 of 2010 in C.T.A.S.R.No.1127 of 2010passed by the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad (forshort ‘the Tribunal’).
I have heard Sri P. Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel for thepetitioner and Sri V. Sreenivasa Rao, the learned counsel forrespondent No.3.
The petitioner has borrowed money from respondent No.3. Asshe failed to repay the same, respondent No.2 has issued the certificate under Section 71 of the Andhra Pradesh CooperativeSocieties Act, 1964, for recovery of the debt. In execution of the saidcertificate, respondent No.3 has filed E.P.No.1170/PL-127/08. Onconsideration of the said application of respondent No.3, respondentNo.2 has passed the order dated 06.03.2010 attaching the petitioner’ssalary to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month. Questioning the saidorder of attachment, the petitioner filed C.T.A.S.R.No.1127 of 2010before the Tribunal. In the said appeal the petitioner also filedI.A.No.258 of 2010 for raising the attachment. After hearing the parties,the Tribunal has dismissed the said I.A., by its order dated03.09.2010. Assailing this order, the petitioner filed the present writpetition.
In para 8 of the order impugned in this writ petition, the Tribunalobserved that the petitioner was due in a sum of Rs.1,02,994/- as on01.06.2010 and that the sums of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.40,000/- werepaid subsequently on 22.06.2010 and 23.06.2010 respectively. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner stated that for the subsequentmonths, Rs.5,000/- per month was recovered from the petitioner’ssalary.
A perusal of the order impugned shows that detailed reasonshave been given for rejection of the petitioner’s application. Moreover,raising of attachment under an interlocutory order pending the appeal,maintainability of which is seriously disputed by respondent No.3, willhave the affect of allowing the appeal itself.
In the light of the above facts, I am of the opinion that theTribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error in declining therelief claimed by the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36509
of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
29[th] December, 2010
GHN