Dismissed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Feb 2024CC/3171/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the High Court examined an allegation that the respondent Bank failed to comply with a previous order directing it to consider a petitioner's request regarding a loan. Finding the order did not mandate a specific decision outcome, the court held there was no willful disobedience and dismissed the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case was dismissed with no costs; interlocutory applications were closed.

M/S Astha Ganesh Sai Wire Products Vs Sri T… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶8

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3171 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^{forwillfulviolationof} orders W.P.No.27484 of 2021, Dt. 02.09.2022.

¶10

Between:

¶11

M/s Astha Ganesh Sai Wire Products, Having office at D.No. 25-1OA, Kabela Road, Vijayawada -520010, Represented by its properaitor, Smt. Chekka Vanaja Rani

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

...CONTEMNOR/RESPONDENT NO. 2

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI. S.V.S.S. SIVA RAM

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: SATYANARAYANA DHARA

¶18

The Court made the following ORDER :

¶19

¶20

APHC010271232023

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶22

3357

¶23

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

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶25

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

¶26

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3171 OF 2023

¶27

Between: M/s Astha Ganesh Sai Wire Products

¶28

...PETITIONER(S)

¶29

AND

¶30

SRI T SANKARA RAO CONTEMNOR(S)

¶31

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

¶32

Counsel for the Respondents: SATYANARAYANA DHARA

¶33

The Court made the following:

¶34

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

¶35

This Contempt Case is filed on the ground that the respondents have not complied with the order in W.P.No.27484 of²⁰²¹ dated

¶36

02.09.2022 of this Court. The order is as follows:

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

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

¶39

■Q

¶40

¶41

respondents, particularly 2"'^ respondent, to consider the request made by the petitioner vide his letter dated 14.09.2021 and pass an order thereon in accordance^withthe governing statutes and rules and inform to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of^this order. No costs.”

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.V.S.S.^SivaRam

¶43

and learned counsel for the respondent Sri Satyanarayana^Dhara.

¶44

The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of direction by this Court, though respondents ostensibly considered its 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^OTSscheme. 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.

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

¶48

petitioner within two weeks and in eompliance thereof, the respondent considered the representation of the petitioner and^{takenadecisionand} communicated the same through letter dated 17.10.2022^andtherefore the order of this Court was scrupulously complied with by the respondents and therefore the Contempt Case is not^{maintainable.}

¶49

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 petitioner, a copy of which is filed along with the material papers of Contempt Case, we find force in^{thesubmissionof} learned counsel for the respondent. The order of this^Court is to the effect that the 2"^^ respondent shall consider the request made by the petitioner vide letter dated 14.09.2021 and pass order thereon in accordance with the statutes and rules and inform to the petitioner. It should be noted that this Court has not specifically directed the respondents, upon considering the representation of the petitioner, 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^{theorderofthis}

¶51

::4::

¶52

Court. Hence the Contempt Case is not maintainable and accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. The petitioner if aggrieved by the decision of the respondent can pursue the legal course of action available under the concerned law, if so advised. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶53

closed.

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

SD/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR A/^ SECTION OFFICER

¶56

To,

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

One CC to Sri. Satyanarayana Dhara Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

THREE CD COPIES TAC

¶61

HIGH COURT

¶62

1

¶63

DATED: 01/03/2024

¶64

ORDER

¶65

ps OF awo]e;^ .A
■ilO OV;
31 JUL 202^ m
9>/
Section

¶66

CC.No.3171 of 2023

¶67

DISMISSING THE CONTEMPT CASE

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Astha Ganesh Sai Wire Products 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

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

Smt Chekka Vanaja Rani Vs Sri T Sankara Rao