Disposed

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao, v. Union of India

Telangana HC6 Oct 2017WA/931/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposition quashed a single judge order dismissing writ petitions regarding corporate complaints. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioners representation and pass a legal order within three months, disposing of all pending appeals.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Joint Director Enforcement to consider representation and pass order within three months.

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao, Vs Union of India — Telangana HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶4

Writ Appeal Nos. 928, 931 and 1065 of 2016

¶5

Common Judgment: (Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶6

The appellant herein is the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 29724, 30437 and 32644 of 2016. He filed these writ petitions to declare failure of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 therein, to initiate action on the complaints made by the petitioner on 8.1.2016, 20.3.2016 and 23.12.2014, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶7

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge noted that the petitioner had made a complaint to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi to be forwarded to the Registrar of Companies, Telangana State; no cause of action arose, as at present, to intervene in the matter; and if the petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the Registrar of Companies, he may approach the appropriate forum as per law. The writ petitions were dismissed.

¶8

Sri M. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that it would suffice if the appellant-writ petitioner’s complaint is directed to be disposed of within a specified time frame. Both Sri K. Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India, and Sri Gopala Krishna Gokhale, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Joint Director, Enforcement, would submit that, while the appellant-writ petitioner’s complaint cannot be forwarded to the Registrar of Companies, the Joint Director, Enforcement would pass an order and intimate the same to the appellant-writ petitioner within three months from today.

¶9

Recording the submission of both the Learned Assistant Solicitor General and Sri Gopala Krishna Gokhale, learned counsel, that the petitioner’s representation, for action to be initiated on his complaint, would be considered, and an order passed in accordance with law within

¶10

¶11

three months, all these Writ Appeals are disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

¶13

___________________ (M. GANGA RAO, J)

¶14

6^th October, 2017

¶15

Note: Furnish c.c. by 9.10.2017 b/o pnb

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶18

AND

¶19

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶20

Writ Appeal Nos. 928, 931 and 1065 of 2016

¶21

Date: 6.10.2017

¶22

pnb

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Gowri Shankara Swamy Devasthanam, Vs P. Adinarayana , Adaiah

Kolla Ajay Vs Potru Adinarayana , Adaiah

K Krishna Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao, Vs The Union of India

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao, Vs Union of India

Bhoj Reddy Engineering College for Women, Vs Cherla Likitha D/o Venkat Reddy