WP/7677/2026 of BHUVANESWARI AGRI PROCESSING AND MARKETING PVT.LTD Vs AP State Legal Services Authority, on 5 April 2026

1. BHUVANESWARI A REP.BY ITS MA TATAPUDI VILLAG DISTRICT, ANDHRA

2. ELURI PRASAD R FLAT.NO. 405, SR NAGAR, GUNTUR

1. AP STATE LEGAL SECRETARY, H,.N NEAR A.P. SECR MALKAPURAM VIL 522 238.

2. THE DISTRICT L CHAIRMAN-CUM- COURTS COMPLE

3. IDBI BANK LIMITE GENERAL MANAG CROSS, LAXMIPU E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) DAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 7677/2026 AGRI PROCESSING AND MARKET ANAGING DIRECTOR ELURI PR GE, CHILAKALURIPET MANDAL, A PRADESH. RAO, S/O. LATE SH RI GOVINDIAH RI RAMA RESIDENCY, 3RD LINE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 52 ...P AND SERVICES AUTHORITY, REP. BY NO.,2-273/54-A, B.S.R. COMMERCIA RETARIAT, 0PP. TRAFFIC POLI LLAGE, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, R PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE X, GUNTUR. 522004. ED, GUNTUR BRANCH, REP. B GER-CUM- BRANCH HEAD, 3RD RAM, GUNTUR.522007. DESH

DRANATH ROY GEDELA TING PVT.LTD, RASAD RAO, PALNADU H ELURI R/O. E, SYAMALA 22006 PETITIONER(S) ITS MEMBER AL COMPLEX, ICE STATION UR DISTRICT- REP. BY ITS , DISTRICT BY ITS ASST. D LINE, 2ND

...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS- Declaring the action of the District Legal Services Authority, Guntur/2nd respondent in refusing to record the compromise duly signed by both the parties and admitted the terms and conditions before the Presiding Officer of Lok Adalat, Guntur as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 19 and Regulation No. Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) (i) 9 of National Regulations, 2009 Direct the 2nd respondent/District Legal Services Authority, Guntur to pass award in terms of Compromise Memo dated 14-03-2026 filed before the Lok Adalat to be held in near (ii) future and Pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the V Additional District and Sessions, Guntur to refer the Criminal Appeal No.618 of 2015 to Lok Adalat/2nd Respondent immediately without insisting the parties to advance arguments to decide the matter on merits when both the parties settled the claim covered by Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2015, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in Criminal Appeal No.618 of 2015 pending on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. MALLAVOLU NIKITHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

The limited grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the District Legal Services Authority, Guntur, is not entertaining the compromise arrived at by both the parties in criminal appeal No.618 of 2015 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur.

2. Heard Ms. Mallavolu Nikitha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority appearing for respondents.

3. The 3rd respondent-IDBI bank limited filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’) against the petitioners, alleging that the cheque issued by them to the bank, in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, was dishonoured on the ground that there are insufficient funds in the account of the petitioners. After complying with the procedure prescribed under law, the bank has filed a complaint against the petitioners and launched criminal prosecution against them, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. After trial, the petitioners were found guilty for the said offence and they were convicted for the said offence and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred an appeal to the appellate Court in criminal appeal No.618 of 2015.

4. During the pendency of the said appeal, it appears that both the parties have entered into a compromise and on their request the matter was referred to Lok Adalat, for settlement. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent-District Legal Services Authority refused to entertain the said settlement on the ground that the authorized signatory of the 3rd respondent- bank did not appear before the 2nd respondent-District Legal Services Authority for the purpose of compounding the said offence. Therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the 2nd respondent-

District Legal Services Authority to entertain the said settlement arrived at by both the parties.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, on instructions, submits that the 2nd respondent-District Legal Services Authority refused to entertain the settlement as the authorized signatory of the 3rd respondent-IDBI bank did not appear before the 2nd respondent-District Legal Services Authority for the purpose of entertaining the said compromise and to record the settlement. He would submit that as the cheque amount is of Rs.14,05,00,000/- and as the settlement is for Rs.11,54,00,000/- and as huge amount is involved in the transaction that the 2nd respondent refused to entertain the settlement in the absence of the authorized signatory before it, for the purpose of recording the said settlement. Admittedly, there is an authorized signatory on behalf of the 3rd respondent- bank. Therefore, he has to appear before the 2nd respondent-District Legal Services Authority for the purpose of settlement of the matter and to record the compromise and as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, as huge amount is involved in the transaction, without the presence of the authorized signatory before it, it is not safe to record the compromise and entertain the settlement arrived at between both the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner today, would submit that the petitioners will take steps to see that the authorized officer of the 3rd respondent-bank appears before the 2nd respondent-District Legal Services Authority for the purpose of arriving at the settlement and to record the compromise to avoid any future legal complications.

7. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent-IDBI bank that an authorized signatory of the bank shall appear before the 2nd respondent-District Legal Services Authority along with the relevant papers showing his appointment as authorized signatory by the competent authority of the bank. If the authorized signatory of the bank is present before the 2nd respondent-District Legal Services Authority, it shall consider the settlement arrived at by both the parties and then pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with law by following the requisite procedure contemplated under law. If any dispute arises regarding the payment etc., then it has to pass appropriate orders on it. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 06.04.2026 MDP