Remanded

M/s. Indus Towers Limited v. Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC13 Apr 2017WP/12510/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the respondent's interference with telecom towers for unpaid structure charges seeking a writ. The court granted an interim order maintaining status quo on the demand for retrospective charges from 2009-10 to mid-2015 and posted the matter for further hearing.

What did the court decide?

Interim order maintaining status quo on the demand for payment of cell charges for the period 2009-10 to 30.06.2015.

M/s. Indus Towers Limited Vs Rajahmundry… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

¶2

:PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WP .NO:12510 of 2015

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Indus Towers Limited Survey No. 133, 4-51, 8th Floor, SLN Terminus, Beside Botanical Gardens, Gachibowli, Hyderabad – 500032, Rep. by its Senior Manager- Legal

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

AND

¶8

Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, Rep. by it's Commissioner, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in interfering with the functioning of the towers erected within the limits of the respondent for non-payment of an amount of Rs.12,000/- for each tower towards structure charges per annum, without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner company and without following due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of well settled principles of natural justice.

¶11

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed herein and the order of the High Court order dated 27.04.2015 made herein and upon hearing the arguments Sri Ghanta Sridhar Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri A.Panduranga Rao, Advocate for the respondent, and the Court made the following.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Learned Standing counsel for the respondent Corporation requests two (2) weeks time to file counter.

¶14

Post on 15.06.2015 in the Motion List.

¶15

There shall be an interim order of status quo on the demand for payment of cell charges for the retrospective period from 2009-10 to 2014-15 upto 30.06.2015.

¶16

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶17

//TRUE COPY//

¶18

For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶19

¶20

1 The Commissioner, Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. (by RPAD)

¶21

2 One CC to Sri Ghanta Sridhar, Advocate (OPUC)

¶22

3 One spare copy

HIGH COURT

PNR,J

Dated: 01.06.2015

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Post on 15.06.2015 in the Motion List

¶29

WP .NO:12510 of 2015

¶30

STATUS QUO

¶31

HIGH COURT

¶32

GK DATED: 01.06.2015

¶33

PNR,J

¶34

Dated: 01.06.2015

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Post on 15.06.2015 in the Motion List

¶37

WP .NO:12510 of 2015

¶38

STATUS QUO

M/s. Indus Towers Limited v. Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Indus Towers Limited v. Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation

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

Syed Qasim Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

P.Vijaya Vs State of Telangana

V. Raghavaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Abul Kalam Welfare Society, Vs The State Telangana

M/s. Indus Towers Limited Vs Samalkot Municipality

Mangalarapu Durga Prasad Vs The State of Telangana