Dismissed

M/s Vimsho Food Products Private Limited v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Aug 2020WP/13983/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief to restrain respondents from entertaining sale deeds and to direct police investigation. Court permitted withdrawal of the writ petition, granting liberty to approach the Civil Court, and dismissed the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to approach the competent Civil Court.

M/s Vimsho Food Products Private Limited Vs The state… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 13983 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s Vimsho Food Products Private Limited, Rep. by its Director Sri Hemanth Kumar J. Nahar, S/o Late Jeevraj Nahar, R/o H.No.10-1-12613, tvlasb Tank, Hyderabad 600004.

¶8

.,.PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat building, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat building, Hyderabad.

¶12

a The Sub Registrar, Faroor Nagar lVandal, Presently Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶13

4 The Station House Officer, Shadnagar Police Station. Cyberabad Co m m issio ne rate.

¶14

t M/s Giridhar Developers, represented by its partner Sri K. Jagan Mohan Reddy S/o K. Gopal Reddy, Flat No. 402, Premchand Apartment, Behind Platina, Kondapur, Hyderbad-600084.

¶15

6 M/s Abhhiraman Developers, represented by its partner Sri Tallapally lVlahender S/o late T. Narayana, Flat No. 201, Premchand Apartment, Behind Platina, Kondapur' Hvderbad-600084'

¶16

...RES'.NDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of lvlandamus or any other appropriate writ drrection and to direct the 3'd respondent not to entertain any sale deeds in respect of the plots allotted towards the share of petitioner company as mentioned in the sharing agreement to act in accordance with law and not to disturb the possession of the petitioner over the land in land admeasuring Ac. 6-06 Guntas in Sy.No.126, Ac.7-26 Gts in Sy. No, 126 and Ac. 12-07 Gts in Sy.no.127, totally admeasuring Ac.26-36 Guntas, situated at Solipur vrllage, Faroornagar Mandal, the then Mahoboobnagar District (presently Ranga Reddy District) without following due process of law and without giving them reasonable opportunity of being heard in an enquiry oil pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent to take suitable action against 5 and 6th Respondent in accordance with the complaint Da|ed 24-06-2017 before the police Shadnagar and a ease of Crime No. 262 12017 and carry of thorough investigation into the offences set out in the complaint and file final report to competent criminal court in accordance with law or any other appropriate writ direction.

¶20

il2il

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay and restrain the 5 and 6th respondent from interfering with the peaceful^possession and enjoyment of the petitioner respective property to an extent of the land admeasuring Ac. 6-06 Guntas in Sy.No.126, Ac.7-26 Gts in Sy. No. 126 and Ac.^'12-07 Gts in Sy.no.127, totally admeasuring Ac. 26-36 Guntas, situated at Solipur village, Faroornagar Mandal, the then [t/ahoboobnagar District (presently Ranga Reddy District) without following due petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. GANGA VENU GOPALA KRISHNA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 4: GP FOR HOME

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: NONE APPEARED

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A,ABHISHEK REDDY

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.13983 of 2O2O

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to approach the competent Civil Court to seek redressal of his grievance.

¶32

Permission is accorded and the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty as prayed for.

¶33

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶34

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

SD/.M ,MANJU ASSISTANT^REGI AR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

One CC to Sri^{G. Ganga Venu Gopala Krishna Advocate[OPUC]} ,. i;; ddr'io^il "^{ccior"trome, Highcourt for the stateof Telanganaat} Hyderabad.^(OUT)

¶38

Two CD CoPies CHR

Ad,

(

HIGH COURT

D ATED:2710812020

1 HE STA re
q
oo i0 3 SEP to?l
)

¶44

ORDER

¶45

W.P.No.13983 of 2020

¶46

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WTHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

¶47

SS'l .
5-rePi<A
lF3
\ F-

M/s Vimsho Food Products Private Limited v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Vimsho Food Products Private Limited v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bommena Rajaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Bal Reddy Janidi Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Garlapati Chandrasekhar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. N.Ananda and another Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Sudhakar Patil Vs The State of Telangana

Late Seetharama Rao Vs the State of Telangana