Disposed

Mr. Emmadisetty v. Surendra Kumar v The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by Principal

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Nov 2022WP/13271/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 challenging an award and recovery certificate for absence of notice and violations of natural justice and the AP Chit Fund Act, the single judge disposed of the matter by directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 70 instead of adjudicating merits, vacating interim stay pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to prefer an appeal under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act within six weeks; interim stay vacated.

Mr. Emmadisetty v. Surendra Kumar Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.13271 of 2015

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶5

India, seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“….to issue Writ of Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, call for the records pertaining to Award and Recovery Certificate dt 21.08.2014 in Dispute No.162 of 2014 on the file of Respondent No.2, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, pervasive, violation of Principal of Natural justice, in violation of Provisions of A.P.Chit Fund Act and in violation of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same…”

¶7

When the matter came up for admission, this court passed an

¶8

Interim Order on 01.05.2015, which is as follows:

¶9

‘ Notice before admission.

¶10

From the material on record, prima facie, it appears that the Award impugned is passed without notice to petitioners. Three shall be stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.136 of 2014 in the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vishakapatnam, for a period of six(06) weeks from Today’

¶11

Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶12

and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶13

At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated his contentions urged in the Writ Petition and further submitted that 1^st petitioner already paid 36 instalments but the respondent No.3 raised a false plea by calculating the interest in

¶14

¶15

routine manner at higher rate and now the 3^rd respondent has also filed Execution Proceedings basing on the Recovery Certificate.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition directing the petitioners to prefer an appeal under Section 70 of Chit Funds Act, within a period of six(06) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of Order. Thereafter, the respondents would pass appropriate orders within a period of four(04) weeks. Till then, the Interim stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.136 of 2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam, would be stayed.

¶17

If the petitioners failed to prefer appeal within the time framed by this Court, the relief granted to the petitioners, would automatically seized to be vacated.

¶18

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶20

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶21

Date : 10.11.2022 AVTP

¶22

¶23

177

¶24

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.13271 of 2015

¶26

Date : 10.11.2022

¶27

AVTP

¶28

Mr. Emmadisetty v. Surendra Kumar v The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Emmadisetty v. Surendra Kumar v The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dasari Chalapathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gowni Ananda Reddy Vs The State of A.P.

Taanamgari Govindaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented its Principal

Vemulapalli Narayanamma at Vempalli Narayanamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Rangoli Venkata Laxmi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Revenue

Badduri Gayatri Devi, Guntur District and 2 Others Vs Prl Secy, Dept. of Revenue(Stamps and Regn), Hyderabad and 10 Ot