Dismissed

Sarda Agro Oils Ltd,and 2 v. Director Gen.of Police,Hyd,and 3

Telangana HC8 Nov 2019WP/23939/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging police interference in company affairs and disputes among brothers was dismissed as baseless. The Court held the petition lacked cause based on the 3rd respondent's counter-affidavit denying interference and noting insufficient evidence in the 4th respondent's complaint.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to restrain police interference is dismissed.

Sarda Agro Oils Ltd,and 2 Vs Director Gen.of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.23939 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent

¶4

No.4.

¶5

The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under:-

¶6

“ …to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in interfering in the day to day affairs of the company and the disputes among brothers which are purely civil in nature, is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional violative of Art.19 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent not to interfere or cause obstructions in the production and smooth functioning of petitioner’s company unit at Satamrai in Sy.Nos.655 and 656, Gaganpahad, Ranga Reddy District… ”

¶7

The 3^rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying the

¶8

allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and contended inter alia that the respondent police never interfered in the affairs of the Company and causing hurdles in smooth functioning of the company. In fact, the 4^th respondent herein lodged a complaint against the petitioners on 19.01.2013 and lodged another complaint stating that he is Managing Director of M/s.BRS Refineries Private Limited. During the course of enquiry of current status of Directors of the Company, the respondent police found that the Managing

¶9

¶10

Director is different and one more Director is added. Except making averments in a casual manner, the 4^th respondent did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of the allegations. Therefore, the complaint lodged by the 4^th respondent lacks requisite preliminary evidence. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that after coming to know about lodging of the complaint by the 4^th respondent against the petitioners, the present writ petition is filed with baseless allegations and to wreck vengeance against the 4^th respondent. It is specifically stated in the counter that the respondent police never interfered with the day-to-day affairs of the petitioner company.

¶11

In view of the specific averments made in the counter-affidavit, this Court is of the opinion that there is no cause for the petitioners to file the present writ petition.

¶12

Recording the submissions made by the 3^rd respondent in the counter-affidavit, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶13

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No

¶14

costs.

¶15

___________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J

¶16

mar

¶17

8^th November 2019

Sarda Agro Oils Ltd,and 2 v. Director Gen.of Police,Hyd,and 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarda Agro Oils Ltd,and 2 v. Director Gen.of Police,Hyd,and 3

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

Salam Bin Dubai Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.P.Kalpana, D/o.P.Ramulu Vs The Director and Inspector General of Police

K. Pranish, Hyd. Vs Prl. Secy., Home Dept. and 2 Ors.

Gulam Amjad, Adilabad. Vs the Circle Inspector of Police,Adilabad,and 4 Otrs.

B. Thimmappa, Mahaboobnagar District Vs Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar District and 5 Others

Ch.Venkatesh Vs Government of A.P.