Disposed

Sri Vemula Parvatalu, v. Sri. M.Badraiah

Telangana HC18 Jun 2021CC/726/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge observed that the order directing compensation payment was complied with. Consequently, the court held that nothing survives in the contempt case and directed its closure, allowing the petitioner to seek enhancement of compensation if any, through available legal remedies. No costs.

What did the court decide?

Closed the contempt case as the impugned order had been complied with; petitioner directed to approach civil court for enhancement.

Sri Vemula Parvatalu, Vs Sri. M.Badraiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA^{KODANDA RAM}

¶7

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 726 OF 2019

¶8

Contempt Case filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt^{of Courts Act 1971 to} punish the Respondents for their willful disobedience of this Honble Court orders Dated 08-3-2019 in W.P. No. 4263/2019

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sri Vemula Parvatalu, S/o Mallesh, Aged about 84^years, Occ- Advocate,^Rl/o.H.No. 2-3-198, Kaman to Bus Stand Road, Karimnagar^-505001, Karimnagar District, Telangana State.

¶11

.....PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Sri . l\4.Badraiah, The Commissioner, Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Ka rimnagar, Telangana State.

¶14

..... RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. AJAY KUMAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. V. SATYAM REDDY

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

1 l

¶19

THE HON,^{BLE SRIJUSTICE CHALLAKODANDA RAM}

¶20

CONTEMPT^{CASE No'726 of 2019}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Contempt^{Caseisrfiled alleging willfuldisobedienceon the} part of the^{respondent-M li Badraiah'Commissioner'Karimnagar} Municipal^{Corporation,ln implementingthe order dated08'03'2019} passed by this^{Court in W P'No 4263of 2019'}

¶23

Heard the^{learned counsel for the petitioner' and the learned} counsel^{appearingfor the respondent'}

¶24

This Court,^{after taking into consideration of the fact that 60} Square^{Yardsof the petitioner'sproperty was affectedin the processof} road widening,^{and on flnding that no compensatlon was paid' directed} entire Process^of paYment of the resPondent^{to comPletFthe} and this^Couft rejected^the comPensation^{withinfou rweeks'} submissionmadeonbehalfoftherespondentthatthesub.Registraris yet to provide^{necessary information as soughtin 2014'}

¶25

Nowthelearnedcounselforthepetitionersubmitsthat,asa has been^{assessedand the amounthas} matter^{of fact,} .compensation also^{beenpaid, however' he is not satisfiedwith the compensationas} the same^{is not reflectingthe correct market value of the property'}

¶26

inasmuch^{as the compensationhas already been paid' nothing} SUTVIVES inthecontemptcaseandthecontemptcaseisliabletobe closed. If the^{petitioneris not satisfied with the quantumof} compensation ,^{he is at liberty to avail the remedies availablein law' by} his claim^{for higher compensationthan the amount} establishing determined.

¶27

¶28

CKR, J

¶29

As the order has been complied^{with, the contempt case is} closed leaving it open to the^{petitionerto work out the remediesas}

¶30

available in law to^{seek enhancement oF compensation,No costs,}

¶31

Miscellaneous petitions, if any^pending, shall stand closed.

¶32

SD/- CH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

Sri. M.Badraiah,^{The Commissioner, Karimnagar Municipal Corporation,} Karimnagar, Telangana^State.

¶37

One CC to Sri. G. Ajay^{Kumar, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶38

One CC to Sri.^{V. SatyamReddy,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶39

Two CD Copies

¶40

One Spare Copy TP {\ V

¶41

HIGH COURT

¶42

DATED: 1810612021

¶43

1 s rA ra,
(;
oo:,? 12 JUIzSA
*
r: --

¶44

ORDER

¶45

CC.No.726 of 2019

¶46

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT^CASE

¶47

Sri Vemula Parvatalu, v. Sri. M.Badraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vemula Parvatalu, v. Sri. M.Badraiah

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

The Official Liquidator Vs Sri Suresh Prasad Mishra

Mr. G. Sudhakar Vs Mr. Ishaq Ahmed

M/S.United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt.Tullibulli Jayamma and 2 Ors.

M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Vs M/s v S a Infra Projects Private Limited

B Anjaiah, Ranga Reddy Dist Vs K Satyanarayaa Reddy, Ranga Reddy Dist and Anr.

G.Rajendranath Goud Vs Sri G.Chandranath Goud