Disposed

M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf and 6 others

Telangana HC8 Jun 2021CRP/711/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition by directing the lower court to dispose of an execution petition within three weeks on merits, without being influenced by prior interim observations.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Court below to dispose of E.P.No.29 of 2014 along with other E.A.s within three weeks; granted fresh hearing date for tomorrow.

M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mumtaz… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:711 OF 2021

¶7

Petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of lndia, to revise the Order dated 1710212021 and made in EA No.96 of 2017 in EP No.29 o't 2014 in OS No.132 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd, A company regd. under the Companies^Act, 1956 Having its office at 6-1-1081, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad Rep by^{its lr/anaging} Director B. Balakrishna S/o late B. Rama Swamy aged^{49 years, Occ. Business R/o.} 8-2-402' Banjara Hills' Hvderaba

¶10

pETrroNERypETraoNER/JD RztoEF2

¶11

AND

¶12

Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf, a Wakf registered Under^{the A.P, Wakf Act repby its} Hon'Secretary At 5:9-919, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad rep by its Secretary^Nawab Mahaboob Alam Khan

¶13

.....RespondenuDHR/plaintiff

¶14

tvl/s B.R. Associates, A^partnership fraving office at6-1-1081,^{Lakidikapool,} Hyderabad Rep by its Managing Partner B. Ramaswamy

¶15

Sii Krishna Hoiel,iep by its Fro-prietor Muralrkrishna^{S/oRangaSwamy aged 49} years, Rl/o 6-1-1082, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad

¶16

Vishnu Lodge, Rep by its Proprietoi, Narendra^{Kumar S/o E.N.Shetty aged 46} years, r/o 6-1-1081, Lakdikapul, Hyderqbad _

¶17

Sri Vigneshwar Lodge, rep by its^{prop. B, Prakash S/o R. RangaSwamy aged 59} years, Fl/o 6-1-1081, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad

¶18

babu Rao, S/o Not known to the^{petitioners Aged major Fl/o 6-1-1081,} Lakdikapul, Hyderabad

¶19

lt4umtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf Tenants Association,^{Rep by its Genral Secretary} M.S. Reddy S/o Late M.V.R. Reddy^{Aged54 years, Office at Hotel Krishna} Compound, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad (Resirondents 2 to 7 arc not necessary parties)

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

For the Petitioner : SRI.M.V.S.SURESH^{KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATEFOR} SRI.ARAVALA SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate

¶22

For the Respondent No.1 : SRI B.NALIN^{KUMAR,Advocate}

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA IIAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.71l of 2021

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing the learred counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.l, at length.

¶27

Having regard to the various contentions raised, more particularly, with respect to the allegation that Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kurnar, learned Senior Counsel, argued only in main E.P.No.29 of 2014 on 21.12.2020 and was not engaged in E.A.No.96 of 2017, which aspect is also being seriously disputed, and considering the very scope of objections being raised by the petitioner, who incidentally is Judgment Debtor No.2, against whom, the decree in O.S.No.l32 of 1999 is required to be executed, the learned Judge ought to have focused on disposing the main E.P. itself, more particularly, considering the fact that the^judgment and decree is dated 13.11.2002, and CRP.No.5863 of 2002 against the same was also dismissed by this Court.

¶28

In those circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to dispose of E.P.No.29 of 2014 along with other E.A.s, within three (3) weeks

¶29

CKR, J 2 C.R.P.No.711 of²⁰²¹

¶30

after conclusion of the^{arguments, strictly on merits and after} considering the arguments^{that may be advancedby the} respective parties. "It^{is made clear that the Courtbelow shall} dispose of the E.P. uninfluenced^{by the observations made in} the order in E.A.^{No.96 of 2017."}

¶31

Considering the^{representationmade at this juncture that} the tnatter is coming^{up tomorow i.e.,09.06.2021,thereshallbe} a direction to the Court^{below to give a fresh date tomorrow} when the matter is taken^{up or when a mentionis made by the} learned counsel. It is^{made clearthat the learnedcounsel shall} advance their arguments^{on the given date and the Court below} shall not^give any^{further adjournmenton that date.}

¶32

Miscellaneous applications,^{if any pending, shall stand}

¶33

closed. Thire shall be^{no order as to costs.}

¶34

sd/-NcxAuPxK.rst-[HsrEiR /

¶35

Note : Amended^ae o9r^{co y{,,!ffi} if ffl Jtffi:+?? ?;;i ) : No.2 ot 2021^{(On being mer} This order substitutes^{oto"t iJi"'J6lolztit} '^{wnicrr was despatched} on 1310712021^. Sd/-M.MANJULA ASSISTAN^{T REGISTRAR} //TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶36

To 1 rhe I I I Add itio nar "n^{i"t ! |ilP"?;: H"?)if,""[it"',l SJtzi*'} 3' 3l: 33^{B 3l Aii,l?Ji'il;x#;;i;iiiPu.t} 4. Two CD^CoPies One SPare^CoPY Kj ..\ \

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810612021

DATED:16/06/2021

AMENDED ORDER

L s IA 7C:
1 t{
(
Ct
or) 15 Jult[l
*
t
D PAT

¶42

CRP.No.711 ot 2021

¶43

l.A.No.2 of 2021

¶44

Disposing of the CRP.

M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf and 6 others

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

M/S Alfa Laval (India) Ltd., Vs Mr. E. S. M. Dass

M/s. Addsun Health Care Vs Bion Therapeutics India Private Limited

Gatla Dahramapuri Vs Smt. Sivasari Kalavathi

M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf

Mohd. Saleem Vs Talla Sanjeeva Reddy and 5 Others

Mrs. VimalVasantKarwande Vs MohamemdGbouse Khan