Disposed¶29

Grr Enterprises v. Sri Shashibhushan Kumar, IAS

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jan 2025CC/630/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court Amaravati; Contempt Case No. 630/2024; Grr Enterprises v. Sri Shashibhushan Kumar Ias and Others; willful disobedience of orders dated 17.11.2023 in W.P.No.29835 of 2022; compliance reported by respondents' counsel Nagaraju Pullagura, Sushma Yaganti, S Siva Kumari; petitioner's counsel V Roopesh Kumar Reddy absent, no instructions; contempt case closed 08.01.2025 by Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda; no order as to costs; pending MPs closed.

What did the court decide?

None; the Contempt Case was closed with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case were directed to stand closed. ¶29

Grr Enterprises Vs Sri Shashibhushan Kumar, IAS — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[3329]

¶2

APHC010058572024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶8

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 630/2024

Between:

Grr Enterprises

...PETITIONER

AND

Sri Shashibhushan Kumar Ias and Others

¶14

...CONTEMNOR(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶18

1.NAGARAJU PULLAGURA

¶19

2.SUSHMA YAGANTI

¶20

3.S SIVA KUMARI

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶23

CONTEMPT CASE NO:630/2024

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 17.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.29835 of 2022.

¶26

No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the respondents.

¶27

Even though this Court specifically directed and provided ample opportunity for the learned counsel for the petitioner for getting instructions in view of the compliance reported by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for petitioner neither appeared before this Court not furnished any instructions.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have complied with the orders dated 17.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.29835 of 2022 and hence, no further orders are required to be passed in the contempt case.

¶29