Dismissed

Smt Chekka Vanaja Rani v. Sri T Sankara Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Feb 2024CC/3170/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that a contempt case was not maintainable as the respondent bank had complied with the writ order by considering the petitioners' request and communicating the decision via letter dated 17.10.2022, as the original order did not mandate a specific decision outcome.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case dismissed. Petitioners allowed to pursue legal course of action under concerned law.

Smt Chekka Vanaja Rani Vs Sri T Sankara Rao — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶8

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3170 OF 2023

¶9

Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondent herein as per the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act for his acts of contempt for willful violation of orders granted by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court by Sri U. Durga Prasad Rao and Sri. B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi in W.P.No.27500 of 2021, dt. 02.09.2022.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt. Chekka Vanaja Rani, W/o Chekka Sri Rama Chandra Murthy,

¶12

Aged about 54 years. Residing at D.No 21-116/1, 2"^^ Floor, Garudadri Block, Srinivasa Grand City, Jain Colony, Gollapudi, Vijayawada - 521225

¶13

Mr. Chekka Sri Rama Chnadra Murthy, S/o Late Ch. Seshagiri Rao,

¶14

aged about 64 years, D/No 21-116/1, 2"^ Floor, Garudadri Block Srinivasa Grand City, Jain Colony, Gollapudi, Vijayawada - 521225

¶15

Mr. Chekka Sesha Krishna Chaitanya, S/o Chekka Sri Rama Chandra Murthy D/No 21-116/1, 2"^ Floor, Garudadri Block, Srinivasa Grand City, Jain Colony, Gollapudi, Vijayawada -521225

¶16

...Petitioners

¶17

AND

¶18

Sri T Sankara Rao, Regional Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (ROSARB), Bank of Baroda, Represented by its Chief Manager, Vijayawada, 27-33-1, Gudavallivari Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada - 520002

¶19

...Contemnor/Respondent No.2

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. S.V.S.S.Siva Ram

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri. Satyanarayana Dhara

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶24

A PHCO10271232023

¶25

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

3357

¶27

FRIDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶30

CONTEMPT CASE NO; 3170 OF 2023

¶31

Between:

¶32

SMT CHEKKA VANAJA RANI AND OTHERS

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

SRI T SANKARA RAO

...CONTEMNOR(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRL S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM

¶38

Counsel for the Respondents: SATYANARAYANA DHARA

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

ORDER: (Per Hon ’ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao)

¶41

This Contempt Case is filed on the ground that the respondents have not eomplied with the order in W.P.No.27500 of 2021 dated 02.09.2022 of this Court. The order is as follows:

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

Having regard to the above submission of learned counsel for petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents.

¶44

particularly 2"** respondent, to eonsider the request made by the petitioners vide their letter dated 14.09.2021 and pass an order^{thereoninaccordance} with the governing statutes and rules and inform to the petitioners within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.^Nocosts.”

¶45

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri S.V.S.S.^SivaRam and learned counsel for the respondent Sri Satyanarayana^Dhara.

¶46

The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of direction by this Court, though respondents ostensibly considered their representation dated 14.09.2021, however rejected the same on the ground that the opportunities earlier given to the borrower were not^{utilizedandon} failure of the borrower, the Bank is not inclined to^{considerasthe} statutes and rules of the Bank will not permit under^OTS scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said ground was taken by the respondents earlier also and therefore the said rejection is not in due compliance of the direction of this Court.

¶47

Refuting the same learned counsel for the respondent^would submit that the Court only directed the respondents^to consider the request made by the petitioners vide letter dated 14.09.2021 and pass order thereon in accordance with statutes and rules and inform to the

¶48

¶49

petitioners within two weeks and in eompliance thereof, the respondents considered the representation of the petitioners and taken a decision and communicated the same through letter dated 17.10.2022 and therefore the order of this Court was scrupulously complied with by the respondents and therefore the Contempt Case is not maintainable. 5. On perusal of the order of this Court and upon hearing^both parties and also on perusing the letter dated 17.10.2022 addressed by the respondents to the petitioners, a copy of which is filed along with the material papers of Contempt Case, we find force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents. The order of this Court is to the effect that the 2"^* respondent shall consider the request made by the petitioners vide letter dated 14.09.2021 and pass order thereon in accordance with the statutes and rules and inform to the petitioners. It should be noted that this Court has not specifically directed the respondents, upon considering the representation of the petitioners, they shall take a decision in a particular manner.

¶50

In that view, we find no disobedience much less willful disobedience on the part of the respondents as against the order of this Court. Hence the Contempt Case is not maintainable and accordingly,

¶51

¶52

the Contempt Case is dismissed. The petitioners if aggrieved by the decision of. the respondents can pursue the legal course of action

¶53

available under the concerned law, if so advised. No^costs.

¶54

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶55

closed.

¶56

//TRUE COPY//

¶57

SDI- S SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT RI^GISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶58

To,

¶59

Sri T Sankara Rao, Regional Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (ROSARB), Bank of Baroda, Represented by its Chief Manager. Vijayawada, 27-33-1, Gudavallivari Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada - 520002

¶60

One CC to Sri. S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

One CC to Sri. Satyanarayana Dhara, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

Three CD Copies SNS

sree

HIGH COURT

DATED: 01/03/2024

ORDER

CC.No.3170 of 2023

OT AND/1./S
2=>
OV
ml
g 1 3 AliG 20?^ Co
. Current Section
PATC.

¶69

DISMISSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS

Smt Chekka Vanaja Rani v. Sri T Sankara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chekka Vanaja Rani v. Sri T Sankara Rao

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

P Murugesan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Putti Sandhya Rani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

SarepalliMukanda Lakshmi at Revella Swetha Arun Vs State Bank of India

Munagala Ravi Kumar Vs Pattabhi Ramarao

M/S Astha Ganesh Sai Wire Products Vs Sri T Sankara Rao