Allowed
M/s. Sambhavi Cold Storage Pvt. LTd., v. The District Collector and Magistrate
Telangana HCWA/962/2010
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
CHIEF JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI…
What the court decided
AI extract
CHIEF JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
W.A.No. 962 OF 2010
JUDGMENT: (Per HACJ)
It is represented that this Writ Appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.499 of 2010 dated 6- 7-2010 and the present Writ Appeal be disposed in terms thereof. In W.A.No.499 of 2010 the Division Bench by order dated 6-7-2010 held as
follows:
“Although cold storage facility is being availed in pursuance of an agreement against storage charges, yet it has attracted the attention of the respondent 1 on the ground that amount charged is on higher side, consequently demand advanced by the respondent 1 requiring the appellant to deposit the excess amount which according to the learned counsel for the appellant is without jurisdiction, resultantly writ petition against the demand notice which is stayed by the writ Court subject to the condition that 1/3rd of the demanded amount is deposited. Being aggrieved, therefore this writ appeal. Regard being had to the nature of the controversy, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met by modifying the order to the effect that instead of depositing the amount, the writ petitioner – appellant shall file a bank guarantee to the extent of 1/3rd of the demanded amount, of course to the satisfaction of the respondent 1. Order is modified accordingly. It goes without saying that in case amount is already deposited, the appellant shall be at liberty to withdraw it, provided he files a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the respondent 1 failing which protection extended by interim order shall lose its force. Disposed
of.”
In view of the above, the Writ Appeal is disposed of in terms of the
judgment in W.A.No.499 of 2010, dated 6-7-2010. No costs.
____________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, HACJ
_________________ V.SURI APPA RAO, J
Date:29-11-2010 Grk
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.A.No.499 of 2010 dated 6-7-2010Followed¶9
B. PRAKASH RAO
V. SURI APPA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court