Dismissed

Ganga Drip Pipe Systems v. the Sbh/Chief Manager/Hyd and Another

Telangana HC5 Aug 2004WP/16663/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of factory premises and alleging violation of Article 19(1)(g). Due to a subsequent eviction decree by the landlord, the petition was withdrawn with liberty to sue for damages. Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to sue for damages.

Ganga Drip Pipe Systems Vs the Sbh/Chief… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 16663 of 1999

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ganga Drip Pipe Systems,

¶9

55, Sudhanagar Colony, R.K.Puram Post,

¶10

Hyderabad, rep. by its Proprietrix Mrs.N.Jagan Mohini

¶11

..... PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1.State Bank of Hyderabad, Shantinagar,

¶14

Hyderabad, rep. by its Chief Manager 2.Meera Desh Pandey, Chief Manager, State Bank of

¶15

Hyderabad, Shantinagar Branch, Hyderabad

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 or any other appropriate writ, direction or directions declaring the action of the 1^st respondent in seizing the factory premises of the petitioner without following due process of law as illegal, unsustainable and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and to issue a consequential direction to the 1^st respondent not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner industry except in accordance with law.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: MR.NUTY RAM MOHAN RAO

¶19

The Court made the following :

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in seizing the factory premises of the petitioner without following due process of law as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and issue a consequential direction to first respondent not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner industry except in accordance with law.

¶22

Having regard to the subsequent event, namely, landlord of petitioner obtained decree for eviction and took possession of the premises, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to petitioner to sue the respondents for damages, if any. Giving liberty to do so, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

5.8.2004

bnr

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

1.The Chief Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Shantinagar,

¶31

Hyderabad.

¶32

2.2CD copies

Ganga Drip Pipe Systems v. the Sbh/Chief Manager/Hyd and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Drip Pipe Systems v. the Sbh/Chief Manager/Hyd and Another

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

Ch. Padmavathi, Vs Assistant Divisiional Engineer ( Construction)

M/s. Sri. Balaji Lubricants, Vs The District Registrar

Mohammed Khaleel Hussain, Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Penumatcha Ramakrishna Raju, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Sita School of Nursing, Vs Indian Nursing Council, Combined Councils Buildings

Bharat Junior College, Vs The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary