Disposed

M/s. Mvs Brick Works, v. The Senior Branch Manager

Telangana HC27 Oct 2004WP/16509/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged the A.P. State Finance Corporation's failure to communicate an Order of One Time Settlement (OTS) despite an alleged agreement. The court directed the Chief General Manager to pass orders on the pending proposal and communicate the result within eight weeks, disposing of the petition without deciding the merits of the settlement cl

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd Respondent to pass appropriate orders on the pending proposal and communicate the result to the petitioner within eight weeks.

M/s. Mvs Brick Works, Vs The Senior Branch… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 16509 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. MVS Brick Works,

¶9

rep. by its Proprietor M.R.Venu S/o. Ramanjulu Naidu, R/o. D.No. 25-317, Rajeevnagar,

¶10

2nd cross/ Kakathopu Palamaneru, Chittoor District.

¶11

..... PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The Senior Branch Manager,

¶14

A.P. State Finance Corporation, Balaji Nagar,

¶15

Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist. 2 The Chief General Manager,

¶16

A.P. State Finance Corporation, Chirag Ali Lane,

¶17

Hyderabad.

¶18

.....RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not communicating an order of OTS though the settlement was arrived on 29.11.2003 with the second respondent as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and further direct the respondents to accept the balance amount of Rs. 3.74,50/- by communicated the OTS decision to the petitioner herein.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K.G.KRISHNA MURTHY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Y.N.LOHITA

¶22

The Court at the admission stage made the following ORDER:

¶23

The petitioner borrowed certain amounts from the 1^st respondent-branch and the 2^nd respondent-Corporation. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the representative of the 2^nd respondent-Corporation for One Time Settlement. The petitioner contends that he submitted an application for One Time Settlement and during the deliberations with the representative of the 2^nd respondent-Corporation, it was agreed to settle the matter for Rs.4,25,000/- under One Time Settlement scheme. The petitioner contends that in pursuance of the said settlement, he paid Rs.5000/- on 29-12-2003 and Rs.20,000/- on 27-02-2004 against the direction to pay 15% of the down payment of the principal which comes to Rs.50,500/- to avail the benefit of the said scheme. The petitioner further contends that the proposal along with his application was forwarded to the 2^nd respondent-Corporation for approval and it is pending with the 2^nd respondent-Corporation since then. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court seeking to declare the action of the 2^nd respondent-Corporation in not communicating the order of One Time Settlement Scheme in pursuance of the settlement arrived at on 29-11-2003 with the 2^nd respondent-Corporation as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and to direct the respondents to accept the balance amount of Rs.3,74,500/-.

¶24

The learned counsel for the respondents represented that though the proposal was sent by the 1^st respondent along with the application of the petitioner to the 2^nd respondent-Corporation, it is for the 2^nd respondent-Corporation to take a final decision regarding the acceptance of the application of the petitioner for One Time Settlement Scheme.

¶25

Having regard to the submissions made by both the parties, the 2^nd respondent (Head Office) is directed to pass appropriate orders on the proposal, if any, sent by the 1^st respondent along with the application of the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the result to the petitioner.

¶26

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶27

(Dr. G.YETHIRAJULU,J)

¶28

27^th October, 2004.

¶29

Tsy

¶30

¶31

1. The Senior Branch Manager, A.P. State Finance Corporation, Balaji Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist.

¶32

2. The Chief General Manager, A.P. State Finance Corporation, Chirag Ali Lane,

¶33

Hyderabad.

¶34

3. Two CD Copies.

M/s. Mvs Brick Works, v. The Senior Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Mvs Brick Works, v. The Senior Branch Manager

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

Chopparapu Venkateswarulu Vs The Principle Secretary Endowments Department

Smt.K.Varalaxmi Vs The District Educational Officer

Dr. K. Jaya Shankar, Vs The Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages

V.T. Satya Sridhar, Vs Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

L.A.S.S. Prasad S/o Bhagavanulu Vs The Commissioner and Director of Collegiate

B. Srinivasa Rao S/o Venkateswarlu Vs Commissioner, Women and child welfare Department