Dismissed

M/s. Venkat Sai Health Care Pvt., Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Sept 2018WP/25070/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of Writ Petition No.25070 of 2018 filed by a hospital seeking a declaration against interference by financial institutions and police. The court directed respondents not to disrupt hospital operations while reserving their contractual right to recover dues.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that respondents shall not interfere with lawful functioning of petitioner's hospitals; interveners retain right to recover loans.

M/s. Venkat Sai Health Care Pvt., Ltd. Vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

W.P.NO.25070 OF 2018

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

Petitioner is M/ s Venkata Sai Health Care Pvt., Ltd., registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and represented by its Managing Director. Petitioner has availed loans from respondents’ 4 to 6 financial institutions and the said loans were taken over by respondent No.7 – Bank. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it has been paying EMIs (loan installments) regularly to the respondent No.7 – Bank, respondents 4 to 6 are interfering with the lawful functioning of the hospitals of the petitioner and respondent No.3 – Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh, is assisting them.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructions submit that 3^rd respondent is not interfering with the functioning of the hospitals of the petitioner.

¶7

Respondent No.7 – Bank filed counter affidavit. Learned Counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent submits that petitioner availed five loans from the 7^th respondent and out of them, three have become Non Performing Assets (NPAs) and two are in the process of declaring them as NPAs. As there is arbitration clause in the loan agreements, notices were issued to the petitioner. It is stated that they are not interfering with the functioning of the hospitals of the petitioner.

¶8

Recording the above statements made by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and the averments made in the counter affidavit of the 7^th respondent, writ petition is disposed of.

¶9

It is needless to observe that respondents shall not interfere with the lawful functioning of the hospitals of the petitioner.

¶10

However, this order will not preclude the respondents 4 to 7 from recovering the loans from the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶11

Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No

¶12

costs.

¶13

costs.
------------------------------------------------
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
DATE:11—09—2018
AVS

M/s. Venkat Sai Health Care Pvt., Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Venkat Sai Health Care Pvt., Ltd. v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bennaiah D.Ed. College, Addl.Course, Vs Prl.Secy., Primary Education Dept., Hyd., and 3 Others

Secy, Sai Elementary Teacher Trg Inst.(D.Ed.,), Karimnagar Vs Prl Secy, School Education Dept, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Secy, Correspondent Islamia College of Elementary Educt Hyd Vs Prl Secy, School Education Dept, Hyd and 4 Ot

Karman Kanta Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Agasti Narayana Swamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Mr. Khaleel Ahmed, Vs The State of Telangana