Disposed

Putta Venkaa Rama Rao Choudary v. Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd.

Telangana HC10 Jun 2016WP/17876/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging notification of agricultural lands. Petitioners were granted liberty to apply to the fourth respondent (PACS) for benefits under a bank scheme to reduce interest and regularize accounts. Parties were directed to maintain status quo until a decision was communicated. Miscellaneous applications were closed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to apply to the fourth respondent for benefits under a regularization scheme; status quo maintained until decision communicated.

Putta Venkaa Rama Rao Choudary Vs Krishna District… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.17876 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Smt. Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi for petitioner and

¶5

Mr. V. Kishore for respondents.

¶6

2. Petitioners pray for Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in notifying lands in RS.Nos.142, 143 and 132/3 of Madicharla Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional.

¶7

3. On 26.07.2010, this Court granted the following interim order:

¶8

“Interim stay as prayed for, on condition of deposition 1/3^rd of the amounts due from the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today.”

¶9

4. Respondent No.4 filed petition to vacate the stay order.

¶10

5. Mr. V. Kishore does not dispute that the petitioners have complied with the conditional order dated 26.07.2010. On instructions, he submits that the respondent bank with a view to reduce NPAs and regularize the accounts of its members, has introduced a scheme whereunder the request for consideration of reduction of rate of interest, penal charges and installments is being considered and the petitioners can be given liberty to make an application on or before cut off date and the respondent bank will consider favourably and pass appropriate orders.

¶11

6. Counsel appearing for petitioners expressed her interest to file application as suggested by the standing counsel.

¶12

7. I am satisfied the writ petition can be disposed of by this order: a) Petitioners are given liberty to apply to the fourth respondent-PACS for extending the benefits under the

¶13

scheme in operation including requisite installments for repayment of the outstanding and the fourth respondent is directed to consider and communicate its decision.

¶14

b) Till a decision is taken and communicated to the parties, the parties are directed to maintain status quo, as on date.

¶15

The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

____________ S. V. BHATT, J June 10, 2016 DSK

Putta Venkaa Rama Rao Choudary v. Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Putta Venkaa Rama Rao Choudary v. Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd.

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

Boddapati Sunaina Vs The Correspondent

N v Premaleela, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies And Ailed Chemicals Ltd., Vs M/s Rithwik Projects Pvt. Ltd.

U. Venkata Raja Reddy Vs a.Laxminarayana

N. Ramanjulu, Vs The District Collector

M/s. Jairaj Ispat Limited, Vs Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited