Dismissed

T.Srinivas Goud, v. Sri Ajay Jain

Telangana HC8 Feb 2013CC/1645/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a contempt petition filed by petitioners challenging the rejection of their absorption claims by AP TRANSCO. The Court held that as Transmission Corporation had considered the claims as directed, no cause for contempt existed. The case was dismissed, directing petitioners to seek redressal through independent proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case dismissed; no costs.

T.Srinivas Goud, Vs Sri Ajay Jain — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

C.C.No.1645 of 2011

¶3

in WP No.336 of 2004

¶4

Date: 08.02.2013

¶5

Between:

¶6

T.Srinivas Goud and 8 others.

¶7

… Petitioners

¶8

And

¶9

Ajay Jain and two others.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶12

C.C.No.1645 of 2011

¶13

¶14

WP No.336 of 2004

¶15

O R D E R :

¶16

W.P.No.336 of 2004 was allowed by this Court on 11.09.2009 directing the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (AP TRANSCO) to consider the claims of the petitioners for absorption in accordance with B.P.M.S.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. The said order was subjected to review in Review W.P.M.P.No.25055 of 2011 in W.P.No.336 of 2004. By order dated 18.07.2011 passed therein, this Court directed the A.P. Transco to consider the cases of the petitioners in the light of the material produced by them to substantiate their claim that they would fall within the ambit of ‘contract labour’ and that they fulfil the requirements of B.P.M.S.No.36 for claiming absorption.

¶17

2. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, the A.P. TRANSCO undertook examination of the petitioners’ cases and by letter dated 04.10.2012, it rejected their claims under B.P.M.S.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 on the ground that the certificates produced by them were not found to be valid/genuine as they did not satisfy the norms. The petitioners were therefore found to fall short of fulfilling the requirements of B.P.M.S.No.36 dated 18.05.1997.

¶18

3. As the A.P. Transco has considered the claims of the petitioners as directed by this Court in W.P.No.336 of 2004, no cause is made out for exercise of contempt jurisdiction. The petitioners, if aggrieved by the rejection of their claims under letter dated 04.10.2012, would necessarily have to seek redressal thereof by way of independent proceedings instituted in accordance with law. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in a contempt case.

¶19

4. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶20

________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶21

Date: 08.02.2013. ssp/bss

T.Srinivas Goud, v. Sri Ajay Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Srinivas Goud, v. Sri Ajay Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.S.Sidhu, S/o.Late Shri M.S.Sidhu, Vs The Government of India

M/s Emmennar Bio-Tech Private Limited, Vs -

Guguloth Balaji Vs Guguloth Vijaya Laxmi

P.Ramakrishna S/o. Pullaiah Vs M/s. Shiram City Union Finance Ltd., Bhadrachalam

B.Thejoram Prasad Vs The Goverment of Ap., Rep.by its Commissioner

Ambati Rambabu Vs Vemuri Radhakrishna