Disposed

Shaik Hussain, Guntur Dist., and Anr. v. the State of a.P.and Ts.,Vigilance, Hyderabad, and 4 Otrs.

Telangana HC14 Mar 2017WP/6965/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged non-availability of papers in A.S.No.19 of 2010. The High Court found records at District Court, Guntur, and disposed of the writ by directing transfer of documents to Narasaraopet for a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The High Court directed the District Court, Guntur to dispatch material papers to X Additional District Court (FTC), Narasaraopet within two weeks so that the matter can be taken up for hearing.

Shaik Hussain, Guntur Dist., and Anr. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI

¶3

WRI T PETI TI ON No.6965 of 2017

¶4

Betw een:

¶5

Shaik Hussain and another

¶6

PETITIONERS

¶7

And

¶8

The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Registrar (Vigilance), Hyderabad, and others.

¶9

RESPONSENTS

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. T.V. Sridevi Counsel for the respondents: Ms. V. Umadevi Court made the following order:

¶11

VRS,J & JUD,J. W.P.No.6965/2017

¶12

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI

¶14

WRI T PETI TI ON No.6965 of 2017

¶15

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian)

¶16

The petitioners came up with the above writ petition with a strange grievance that the papers in A.S.No.19 of 2010 on the file of the X Additional District Court (FTC), Narasaraopet, could not be traced and that therefore the appeal got stuck.

¶17

Heard Ms. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. V. Umadevi, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶18

The respondents filed a counter affidavit to the effect that the records in A.S.No.19 of 2010 are available in the central record room of the District Court, Guntur. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner cannot any more subsist.

¶19

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the District Court, Guntur to ensure that the material papers and records in A.S.No.19 of 2010 are dispatched to the X Additional District Court (FTC), Narasaraopet within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, the X Additional District Court shall take up the matter for hearing after notice to the parties.

¶20

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

__________________________ JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN

¶22

__________________ JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI

¶23

14^th March, 2017 Js.

¶24

VRS,J & JUD,J. W.P.No.6965/2017

¶25

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND

¶27

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI

¶28

WRI T PETI TI ON No.6965 of 2017

¶29

Date: 14-03-2017

¶30

Js.

Shaik Hussain, Guntur Dist., and Anr. v. the State of a.P.and Ts.,Vigilance, Hyderabad, and 4 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Hussain, Guntur Dist., and Anr. v. the State of a.P.and Ts.,Vigilance, Hyderabad, and 4 Otrs.

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

The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Vs M/s Lee Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

C. Nanda Kumar, Vs Union of India

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Engineering Works, Tirupati, Represented by Vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Chittoor -Ii Circle, Chittoor

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Vs M/s. Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited

Aashirvad Films, Rep by its Proprietor Sri Rajan Sharma, Vs Union of India

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs M/S Pennar Industries Limited