Dismissed

M. Yesupadam v. Mr. Dolaiah

Telangana HC25 Jun 2013CC/166/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the petitioner sought punishment for the respondent's alleged failure to implement court orders. The respondent stated that the relevant amount had been deposited regarding one writ petition. The court allowed this plea, closed the case, and left open further proceedings regarding other writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; miscellaneous petitions dismissed; no costs.

M. Yesupadam Vs Mr. Dolaiah — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.166 of 2013

¶2

Dated 25-6-2013

¶3

Between: M.Yesupadam.

¶4

…Petitioner.

¶5

And:

¶6

Dolaiah, A.P.State Textile Development Corporation Limited, represented by its Official Liquidator, at Chenetha Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶7

Respondent.

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.166 of 2013

¶9

O R D E R :

¶10

This Contempt Case is filed seeking to punish the respondent for his willful disobedience of the orders dated 19-4-2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.12661 of 2001.

¶11

2. Writ Petition Nos.12661 of 2001, 12662 of 2001 and 3072 of 2009 and 3907 of 2009 have been filed challenging different orders passed by the labour Court, Guntur.

¶12

3, This Court by common order dismissed the above writ petitions on 19-4-2012 confirming the order of the Labour Court, Guntur. Consequently, the respondents herein are bound to implement orders of the Labour Court, Guntur. Four weeks time was also granted to the respondents therein for implementation of the orders of this Court in the said writ petition. However, in this Contempt Case, in the prayer column, the petitioner has prayed to punish the respondent for his willful disobedience in implementing the orders dated 19-4-2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.12661 of 2001.

¶13

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has deposited the amount so far as writ petition No.12661 of 2001 is

¶14

concerned.

¶15

5. It is left open to the petitioner to file separate Contempt Cases against the respondents if they fail to implement the orders passed in other writ petitions.

¶16

6. In the above circumstances, this Contempt Case is closed. No costs.

¶17

7. As a sequel to the disposal of this Contempt Case, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶18

______________________ B.CHANDRA

¶19

KUMAR, J. Dated 25-6-2013. Dvs.

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶21

CONTEMPT CASE No.166 of 2013

¶22

Dated 25-6-2013

¶23

Dvs

M. Yesupadam v. Mr. Dolaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Yesupadam v. Mr. Dolaiah

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. Pola Rao, Vs Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of A.P. State Agro --

Frederick Benjamin Morris Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Lakshmi Suri, Vs the Unon of India, rep. by its Secretary

Kethavath Lalsingh, Vs Bomidika venkat Reddy

G. Malla Reddy Vs Sri Karikalavalan I.A.S.

Jatoth Hunya Naik, Vs Bomidika venkat Reddy