Disposed

Sri M.Hari Narayanan v. M/S.Atluri and Co.

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Jan 2023LPA/1/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of without adjudicating on the merits. The Single Judge was directed to consider a pending application for discharge and future appearance for the appellant was dispensed with while the contempt case proceeds against other respondents.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal disposed; presence of appellant dispensed with pending discharge application consideration.

Sri M.Hari Narayanan Vs M/S.Atluri and Co. — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI & THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR

¶3

L.P.A. No.1 OF 2023

¶4

JUDGMENT : (per A.V. Sesha Sai, J)

¶5

Heard Sri P. Subash, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. Vinodin Ruth, learned counsel for the petitioner-1^st respondent herein.

¶6

This Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, calls in question the order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.C.No.4266 of 2022.

¶7

The 1^st respondent herein filed W.P.No.16930 of 2022, assailing the action on the part of the respondents in the Writ Petition in not sanctioning the pending undisputed total bill amount of Rs.64,92,985/-. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.07.2022 disposed of the Writ Petition, with a direction to the respondents in the Writ Petition to release the amount of Rs.64,92,985/- to the Writ Petitioner, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and further clarified that in the event of failure to

¶8

¶9

pay the said amount within the time stipulated above, the writ petitioner is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum.

¶10

Alleging disobedience of the order passed in the Writ Petition, Contempt Case in C.C.No.4266 of 2022 came to be filed by the first respondent herein on 13.10.2022 under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The learned Single Judge of this Court ordered notice to the respondents in the Contempt Case. On 30.11.2022, the learned Single Judge directed to issue Form No.1 to respondent Nos.2,5 and 7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, on 01.12.2022 i.e., one day after issuance of notice in Form No.1, the appellant herein filed two (02) Interlocutory Applications i.e., I.A.No.1 of 2022 and I.A.No.2 of 2022, praying this Court to discharge the appellant from the Contempt and to dispense with his presence on 30.12.2022. On 30.12.2022, the Contempt case was listed before the learned Single Judge and on the said date, the learned Single Judge passed the following order:

¶11

“Pursuant to the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by this Court, respondent Nos.5 and 7 appeared before this Court in person and sought time for filing counter or for reporting compliance. Therefore, the future presence of respondent Nos.5 and 7 is dispensed with until further orders.

¶12

¶13

At request of learned counsel for the respondents, list the matter on 25.01.2023 for filing counter or for reporting compliance, and for the presence of the 2^nd respondent.”

¶14

According to the learned counsel for the appellant,

¶15

when an Application for discharge is pending consideration before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed the appearance of the appellant2^nd respondent in the Contempt Case on 25.01.2023. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in the affidavit filed in support of the discharge Application i.e., I.A.No.1 of 2022, the appellant herein categorically brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant has nothing to do with the sanction of amount to the petitioner and it is only the Zilla Parishad-authorities, who are competent to take action as per the order in the Writ Petition.

¶16

On the other hand, Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, contends that, while disposing of the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge directed all the respondents to take action for release of the amount.

¶17

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Senior Counsel for the respondent and taking into account the pendency of I.A.No.1 of 2022 in C.C.No.4622 of 2022 and in order to put a quietus

¶18

¶19

for the issue, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present Letters Patent Appeal, with a request to the learned Single Judge to consider the application filed by the appellant vide I.A.No.1 of 2022. It is also made clear that, pending consideration of the said Application, the presence of the appellant, who is respondent No.2 in the Contempt Case stands dispensed with. It is also made clear that this order will not come in the way of dealing with the Contempt Case as against the other respondents in the Contempt Case.

¶20

Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶21

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case, shall stand closed.

¶22

__________________ A.V. SESHA SAI, J

¶23

______________________________ Dr. V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR ,J

¶24

Date: 23.01.2023 Ks

¶25

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI & THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR

¶27

L.P.A. No. 1 OF 2023

¶28

(per A.V. Sesha Sai, J)

¶29

Date: 23.01.2023

¶30

Sri M.Hari Narayanan v. M/S.Atluri and Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M.Hari Narayanan v. M/S.Atluri and Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Hareesha, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Anuchuri Anantha Lakshmi Vs the State of Ap

Jukunta Ashok Sidhid Kishore Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kasturi Cotton Ginning and Pressing Mills Private Limited Vs Union Bank of India

M/S Sree Jayalakshmi Cotton Traders Vs Canara Bank

Smt Kaki Santhi Priya Vs Union of India