The High Court of Telangana disposed of Writ Appeal No. 1109 of 2015 as infructuous, considering the appellants had complied with the directions of the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeal was disposed of as infructuous without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
H,GH COURT FOR IHE SIATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY F rwo},r'ou!'nErillr,irr#."^iry8l,E,
PRESEA/r
rHE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE H|,MA KOHLI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1109 OF 2015
Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent appeal preferred against the order dt.05-1 2-20 14 passed in W.P.No.2483 4 of 2010 on the file of the High Court. Between:
AND
...Respondent No.2/Respondent No.3
WAMP. NO: 2945 OF 20'15
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to stay the operation and affect of the orderpassed by the learned singlejudge inW.P.No.24834 of 20'10 dated 5.12.2014 inpending disposal of the above writ appeal
WAMP. NO: 3038 OF 2015
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased toreceive the Additional Affidavit as well as the additional materialpapers in the Writ AppealNo. 1109 of 2015 and treat them aspart andparcel of this instant writ appeal.
WAMP. NO: 219 OF 2016
Between:
Vegetable Commission Agents Welfare Association(, Reg. No.3955/90), Gu"ndimalkapur, Hyderabid, Rep. by its PresidentlVi.K.V6nkat Reddy, S/o. K.Pratap Reddy, aged about 59 years.
Petition under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPCprayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/'l't respondent to file additional documents on behalf of the 1st respondent ln the above writ appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. SANJEEV KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI N. BHARAT BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V.V. NARASIMHA RAO The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
Itcnr \o 16
THI IION' Ir t.i. 1'H I' (,'IIII F',,l_i s1'rCE IIrlfAKO III-I .\Nt)
W.A.No. I 109 ot'2015
J{JDG MI]N'f : (Per thc IIon,blc the Chiet.lustice ltima Kohti)
I. At the outset, Mr. A. Sanjeev Kumar, leamed Special Government Pleader appcaring tbr rhe appellants states that in vicw ol the fact that the appellants haci cornplied with the directions passed by tirc learncd Singre .rirclgc. vitra .r.der. cratecl 05. r2.20 r4 i. \'.P.No.24834 o1- 2010 lrlecl b1, rhc r.cspordcnr No. IiAssociarion and cor rsiclerecl thc cases ol thc r-r..rcr.nbcrs of rhe re sponde nL \o. lr',.rssociation lbr all.t,cr.rt oi' sh.1ts. Lhc pre scnt appcal has bcen lcndcled inlilictuous.
SD/.CH.VE N KATESWARU LU DEPUW REGISTBAR //TRUE COPY/I \_,. SECTION OFFICER
To,
&-
HIGHCOURT
DATED:0910312021
JUDGMENT
W.A.No.1109 of2015
1 irE STA ,a
t
I 2l MAn 2[21 o
I,J 'l-
,1.
<br>
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
#,
' "j4Ot
r
(q,.
State of Telangana
Vegatible Commission Agents Welfare Association
Hima Kohli
B. Vijaysen Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
