Partly allowed

M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Rice Industry v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC19 Sept 2013WP/10896/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition challenging a restraint notice on failed rice supply. It permitted the petitioner to supply boiled rice worth Rs. 80 Lakhs within two weeks and the balance within six weeks, conditional on obtaining mill-running permission. Failure to comply allows recovery of rice value. Connected cases are disposed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Permission to supply boiled rice worth Rs. 80,00,000 within two weeks and balance shortfall within six weeks. Permission to run the mill from competent authority. If failed, recovery of rice value und

M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Rice Industry Vs The Government… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.10896 of 2013

¶2

Dated 1 9 th September, 2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

M/s.Sri Sai Krishna Rice Industry

¶5

…Petitioner and

¶6

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.M.M.Srinivas

¶9

for Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri A.Ravinder Reddy

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed questioning the destraint notice issued in Form-I under Section 7 of the A.P.Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short ‘the Act’) on the ground that the petitioner failed to supply 1173.893 metric tons of boiled rice.

¶14

This Court by order, dated 15.05.2013, granted interim stay of further proceedings subject to the petitioner supplying the rice equivalent to 1335.833 metric tons within six weeks. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the quantity of 1335.833 metric tons in the order, dated 15.05.2013, is a mistake for 1173.893 metric tons. He has placed reliance on the final notice, dated 18.01.2013, issued by respondent No.4 which supports his contention that the quantity of rice to be delivered is 1173.893 metric tons.

¶15

Be that as it may, when the petitioner approached with a request to receive the said quantity of rice, respondent No.4 has issued notice, dated 07.06.2013, wherein it is stated that the petitioner offered to supply the rice on 01.06.2013, i.e., 17 days after this Court has passed the interim order, and that the petitioner is informed that he shall supply equivalent raw rice.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as a result of failure of respondent No.4 to receive the boiled rice when the petitioner has offered in pursuance of the interim order of this Court, the petitioner was disabled from supplying the same and that instead of receiving the boiled rice as offered by the petitioner, respondent No.4 has unjustly demanded raw rice contrary to the agreement between the parties. The learned counsel further submitted that the paddy season is coming to an end and therefore it requires some reasonable time to supply short fall quantity of boiled rice of 1173.893 metric tons.

¶17

Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4, submitted that respondent No.4 will receive either the boiled rice or equivalent raw rice from the petitioner, provided it supplies the same within a reasonable time.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that immediately the petitioner will supply boiled rice worth Rs.80,00,000/- readily available with it and supply the balance short fall quantity of boiled rice within two months if it is permitted to run the mill.

¶19

In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to supply boiled rice worth Rs.80,00,000/- within two weeks from today. The balance short fall quantity of boiled rice to make 1173.893 metric tons shall be supplied by it within six weeks thereafter. If the petitioner approaches the competent authority, it shall grant permission to run the mill. If the petitioner fails to comply with either of these conditions, the respondents are entitled to proceed to recover the value of the rice from the petitioner under the provisions of the Act.

¶20

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.13478 and 21562 of 2013 and W.V.M.P.No.1681 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶23

19^th September, 2013

¶24

VGB

M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Rice Industry v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Rice Industry v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Golla Govindu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal

Josyula Satyanarayana Das Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

M. Balaswamy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Neo Southern Metal Mart Premises Vs M/s. Mstc Ltd.

M/s. Siva Sai Granites, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kattela Ramdass, Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board