Dismissed¶20

Sri M Chakradhar v. Sri Bonthu Sanyasi Naidu

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Dec 2025CC/1900/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt Case No. 1900 of 2025; APHC010374262025; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Justice Challa Gunaranjan; 19.12.2025; dismissed; compliance with interim direction; speaking order dated 12.09.2025 rejecting request for payment of salary; representation dated 12.03.2025 claiming salaries; petitioner Sri M Chakradhar; contemnor/respondent Sri Bonthu Sanyasi Naidu; counsel G N Uma Rani and A Veeraswamy; petitioner at liberty to question orders dated 12.09.2025; interlocutory applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Since the Court's concern is confined to deliberate disobedience or negligence in implementation, and the order dated 12.09.2025 disposed of the petitioner's representation by rejecting the request for salaries, it was not appropriate for the Court to examine the merits or otherwise of that decision. ¶19

Sri M Chakradhar Vs Sri Bonthu Sanyasi Naidu — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010374262025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA Bench Sr.No:23 PRADESH [3506] AT AMARAVATI

¶3

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1900 of 2025

Sri M Chakradhar

...Petitioner

Vs.

sri bonthu sanyasi naidu

¶8

...Contemnor

¶9

¶10

Advocate for Petitioner: G N UMA RANI

¶11

Advocate for Contemnor: A VEERASWAMY

¶12

CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶13

DATE : 19th December 2025

¶14

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶15

Sri A. Veera Swamy, learned counsel for the respondents,

¶16

states that in pursuance to the interim direction passed by this Court, against which the present contempt case has been preferred, speaking order has been passed and communicated to the petitioner by order dated 12.09.2025, rejecting the request for payment of salary. Therefore, it is stated that the order has been complied with and no contempt would lie.

¶17

¶18

Ms. G.N. Uma Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner, though does not dispute the factum of passing of order dated 12.09.2025, however, contends that there is no consideration as such with respect to the petitioner’s representation dated 12.03.2025 claiming for salaries.

¶19

Inasmuch as this Court is only concerned with whether the respondents deliberately acted in disobedience to the orders passed and showed negligence in implementation of directions, since the order dated 12.09.2025, disposed the representation of the petitioner by rejecting the request for salaries, it is not appropriate for this Court to examine the merits or otherwise of the decision so made.

¶20

Therefore, this Contempt Case stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to question the orders dated 12.09.2025, issued by the respondents.

¶21

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶22

Date: 19.12.2025 ANS

¶23

______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶24

¶25

240

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶27