Disposed

Chaparla Sitaram v. the State of A.P. Rep. by Advocate General, Hyd.

Telangana HC3 Mar 2021CA/13/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the High Court of Telangana held the appeal infructuous because the underlying writ petition had been withdrawn by the appellant on 14.06.2013, leaving nothing to decide. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The contempt appeal was disposed of as infructuous along with pending applications without costs.

Chaparla Sitaram Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by Advocate… — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

co NTEMPT APPEAL NO: 13 0F 2016

¶6

. contempt Appeal under section 19 of contempt of courts Act by suspending the order dated 31-0'1-201 3 in Contempt Case No. of 2019.

¶7

Between:

¶8

chaparla sitaram, s/o late Venkataratnam, Aged about 45 years occ: Advocate, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶9

..Petitioner / Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The state of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Advocate General, High court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/ Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI p. SIVANARAYANA FOR

¶14

SRI C. RAMACHANDRA RAJU

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI HARENDER pERSHAD,

¶16

SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

Item No.32

¶19

TTITi I{ON'BLE'I'HI.]^('TIIEI.- .IT-S1'ICE II IMA KOHLI

¶20

ANI)

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JT]S'tICE I}. /IJAYSIiN REDDY

¶22

C.A.No.l3 ol'2016

¶23

JUDGMENT: (Pu the Hr-rn'ble the^{Chicf ,lusticcHinra Kohli)}

¶24

l. Mr. P. Sivanarayana, Advocate appears on behall of

¶25

Mr. C.Ramachandra Raju, learned coLrnsc'l tbr thc appe llant.

¶26

Mr. Flarender Pershad, learned Special^(lovernnrent Pleader lor respondent states that nothing survives in the present appeal inasmuch as the appellant had withdrawn W.P.No.2724 o1-2013 on 14.06.2013,

¶27

wherein the contempt petition had been filed.

¶28

In view of the above, the^present appeal is disposed of^as

¶29

infructuous along with the pendiug applications, il an1'.

¶30

SD/.K.SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Lr()

¶31

SECTION OFFICER

¶32

To,

¶33

Two CCs^{to the Advocate General,HighCourt for the State of Telangana at} Hvderabad.^(OUT)

¶34

z. 6i,i"ct iii^{s'rl b. hamacnandra Raiu,Advocate[o P u c]}

¶35

Two CD^CoPies gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310312021

JUDGMENT

GA.No.13^{of 2016}

DISPOSING^{OF THE C.A.}

¶41

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶42

l{e S TA I4i
(
q
f,o
18lW2021
{
DF i,..-i
rX.:r
q
4
W

Chaparla Sitaram v. the State of A.P. Rep. by Advocate General, Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaparla Sitaram v. the State of A.P. Rep. by Advocate General, Hyd.

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

K. Devanand Vs L. Rammohan

S. Valli Swaroopa Vs J. Durga Venkata Satish Sharma

Mr. B.Issac Bhasker Rao Vs Mrs. B. Surekha Bhasker

Y Subhas Vs M Rajesh

Mohd Ghiasuddin Vs Nikhath Fatima

M/s. Vajani Infra Vs Burra Vegugopal Goud