Disposed

Yatri Nivas Amogh Workers v. B.S. Neelakanta

Telangana HC1 Jul 2022CC/375/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a contempt case filed for alleged disobedience of an order requiring payment of Education Concession Allowance, examined the submitted responses. Finding no material to prove the failure to reimburse was willful, the Court concluded that contempt proceedings could not be sustained and closed the case.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings were closed as there was no evidence of wilful disobedience of the Court's order.

Yatri Nivas Amogh Workers Vs B.S. Neelakanta — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY,^{THEFIRST DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY TWO}

¶5

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO}

¶6

coN TEMPT^{CASENO:375 oF 2021}

¶7

(Contempt Case^{under Section10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish} the Respondents^{herein for violating, disobeyingthe orders of the High Courtdated} 27tO1t2O21in^{lA No.1 ol 2O21 in WP No'690 ot 2021)}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Yatri Nivas^{Arnogh Workers,and EmployeqsU.L1gq(Re.oa'No 8-2738)Represented} by irs Generat^{secretary, 'H:i,[."d:i;'69/i97d8iid,l-ndira Nasar, Jubliee Hills'} Hyderabad ...'ETIT'ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

B-S. Neelakanta,^{Sio Late Somashekaram'Occ'Business-' DirectorM/s'Butta} "n"tpii;[iv ]?'Lid:';-i.i, KFHB Road, Madhapur, Hvderabad ...RESpoNDENrs

¶12

For the Petitioner:^{SRIK.V' SATYA RAMACHANORARAO' Advocate}

¶13

For the Respondent^{: Ms N'NIYATHA,Advocate}

¶14

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶15

¶16

¶17

HONOURABLE SRI JI,STICE^{P.NAVEENIR.AO}

¶18

CONTEMPT CASE No.3^{75of 2O2L}

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

Heard Sri K.V.Satya Ramachandra^{Rao, Iearnedcounsel} for ttre petitioner and Ms.^{N. Niyatha, learned counselappearing} for respondent.

¶21

This contempt is filed^{alleging wilful disobedienceof the} orders of this Court in^{I.A.No.1of 2O2L in W-P.No.690 of 2O2l} dated 27.01.2O21 regarding^{payment of Education Concession} Allowance, by the resPondent.

¶22

According to learned counsel^{for -the respondent,} Education Concession Allowance^{is being paid to the employees} whenever an employee^{furnishes informationabr>ut tJ e child} prosecuting the education and^{the parent paying the fee payable} towards education of^child.

¶23

Ot 31.12.2021, the following^{order waspassr:d:}

¶24

"learned counsel for the^{resPondent expresses} inability to make the^payment as^{the basic details} of the children of employees^{prosecuting education} are not furnished by the^{petitioner even thougha} request was made in this^regard.

¶25

karned counsel for the^{petitioner placed} b€fore this Court a letter stated to^{haYe been} addressed to the Managing director of^the respondent - company dated^20.12.2021 furnishing the names of the children and their parents and list of schools.

¶26

-@"{

¶27

-3-

¶28

[.€arned counsel^{for the respondeflt inlorr-ns} tn cill'-irr"t^{the petrtionerhas to fumish the} f.ioi-J ffi:'.,ii;^;;;;i "ou.". "l'""'"'v^{of education} proof^that of the^{students pavment areof} fee to the^schools.

¶29

I€arned^{couns€l for the petition€runagrtaLtll} to furnish^{the informadonabout Prosecuttng- tne} ;;;;;uv-,tt"^{tttitat""of the emplovees from} fiii-i"it "'r"..^{oi a Studycertihcateand/or fee} and requests^{two weekstimes} ;;b"d;"il;nts ffi;#;iil to the^{Manasement of the r€spondent} -^company.

¶30

All the^{required informationshallbe} fumistli^{uy- rft" p"titiontr to theManagement} :ilil1; til^{u-o"ntt due and pavableto the} emploYees.

¶31

Recording^thesame' the matter^stands adjourned^{to 18.02 '2022'}

¶32

The further^{appearanceof the respondentis} dispensed^{with for the Present'"}

¶33

On 25.03 '2022,^{the matter was heard furtherand having} regard^{to the submissions made' the Courtpassedthe following}

¶34

order:

¶35

"Irarned^{counsel for the petitionerreqYe:ts} on the sround^{to place o{r record the} "alollnrntttt, material^{to show thaieven though} .aU^the 1e-31ts weie furnist'ea^{to provide the education} -con:ess'lon allowance^{to all the chitdren in the- family" but} is^{paid only to onechild in the family'} "Uo*ut'"" At request'^{list on 22'04'2022 "}

¶36

Thereafter,^{the matterunderwent twomore} adjournments.^{As of now' there is no material to show that even} though^{informationregardingeducation ofchildren was} furnished^{to the respondent by the employees'respondent failed}

¶37

toreimbursetheallowancepayable.Therefore,itcannotbe

¶38

€{.'

¶39

-4-

¶40

said anymore that there is a deliberate and wilfut disobedience of the orders of this Court, warranting initiatiorr of contempt proceedings. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stan(l closed.

¶42

Sd/-CH.VENKATESWARULU

¶43

C,EPUTf-REGISTRAR tlrRUEcoPYll

¶44

SECTION OFFICER

¶45

To 1 '^{B.S. Neerakanta,} Director- M/s. Butta Hospitarity pvt Ltd. 4-14, KpHB Road, Madhapur, Hyderabad 2,l. . one One cc CC to to Ms. Nniyatlia Sri K.V.Satva Ramachandra Add;i;ioCrjij-' Rao,^'''" Advocate lOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies A. One Spare Copy

Kj dI

\ {

HIGH COURT

DATED:,0110712022

ORDER

CC.No.375 of 2021

HE SIA r6
s
C
Y
.i a.
f ntt
LLir WN
[2
7, ,,./
*
\ -.-l) . er'( ,'./ t ;z'

¶53

CLOSING THE CC.

¶54

?n
".1^
\n \lt

Yatri Nivas Amogh Workers v. B.S. Neelakanta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yatri Nivas Amogh Workers v. B.S. Neelakanta

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

A.Usha Rani Vs Sri. Sandeep Sultania and 2 others

Shaik Rafi Ahmed Vs Shri Sunil Dutt

J.Venkataiah Vs M.Vasuchandra

Guda Lakshmi Lalithya Vs S. Sandeep

M/s.Om Prakash Jewellers and Pearls Vs Mrs.Uma Bung Bagri

IskaAkshara Vs S.Ravichandra Reddy