Dismissed

Ananda Foods, Bhimavaram v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC15 Nov 2018WA/1487/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench dismissed the Writ Appeal without prejudice to the right to prosecute the matter further before the Single Judge, citing concurrent stay petitions and the nature of the underlying interlocutory order. No legal principles were stated.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed without prejudice to the appellant's right to prosecute the matter further before the learned Single Judge.

Ananda Foods, Bhimavaram Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

WRIT APPEAL No.1487 OF 2018

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per The Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan)

¶4

We have heard Mr. Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner, who has challenged the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge essentially in his favour.

¶5

The appeal is confined to the statement in the impugned order that payment of amounts in terms of that order will be without prejudice to the rights in the appeals preferred by the State against the orders of the Criminal Court.

¶6

We have perused the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

¶7

We dissuade ourselves from expressing anything on the facts or material issues in Law, that may arise in different jurisdictions inter se the State and the appellant. We do so, because the third respondent has filed a vacate stay petition before the learned Single Judge to vacate the interlocutory order, which is impugned in this Writ Appeal. Even if the appellant-writ petitioner needs any modification to the interlocutory order, which is appealed against, this is also a matter which could be worked out before the learned Single Judge. It will also be open to the parties to persuade the learned Single Judge to decide the Writ Petition itself finally.

¶8

Under the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find it necessary for us to interfere with the interlocutory order on any ground through this intra-Court appeal under the Letters Patent. We,

¶9

¶10

therefore, refuse to entertain the Writ Appeal and dismiss it without prejudice to the appellant’s right to prosecute the matter further before the learned Single Judge and also without prejudice to the third respondent’s right to prosecute the vacate stay petition before the learned Single Judge.

¶11

It is clarified that all issues inter-parties are left open for

¶12

consideration before the learned Single Judge.

¶13

In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.

¶14

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶15

pending in the Writ Appeal shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

_________________________
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ

S.V. BHATT, J
15 th November, 2018.
Pnb

Ananda Foods, Bhimavaram v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda Foods, Bhimavaram v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

J Ambar Vs Prl.Secy., Proh. and Excise Dept., Hyd., and 4 Others

Jadhav Upender Vs The State of Telangana

Anumula Ananthamu Vs The State of Telangana

Indla Anjaneyulu,Prakasam Dist.,and 9 Otrs. Vs the State of a.P.,Fisheries,Amaravathi,and 7 Otrs.

Korrapolu Lakshmi Vs Smt. Sabbavarapu Pushpavathi

Nuchupoda Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs India Anjaiah , Anjaneyulu