Dismissed

Sri Amit Kumar Agarwal, R.R. District. v. S. Pandu Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad and 3 Others.

Telangana HC15 Sept 2022WA/347/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed two writ appeals filed by Amit Kumar Agarwal against orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as infructuous, finding no surviving substantive issues in the appeals.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals were dismissed as infructuous. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were also dismissed.

Sri Amit Kumar Agarwal, R.R. District. Vs S… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

[^32es ]

¶5

THURSDAY. THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NOS: 346 AND³⁴⁷ OF 2011

¶10

WA NO.346 OF 20111

¶11

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent^preferred against the Order dated 15-4-2011passed in W.P. No 1146312010 on the f(e of the High Court. -_⁾

¶12

Between:

¶13

Sri Amit Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Lakshminarayana Agarwal, R/o. Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Road No.2, H.No 9-11-1114, Kothapet, RR District.

¶14

4" RES^poN DE Nr,* *. ro. i lfrltoltl8ttJ

¶15

AND

¶16

S. Pandu Ranga Reddy, S/o. S. Madhava Reddy, Business, R/o. Flat No.402, Mithilia Enclave.2-2-18146, D.D. Colony, Hyderabad-500 O r a. ....*."roro.*r,

¶17

oF 20r0

¶18

2 rhe Govt orAndhra^pradesh,, R"p. by13L""','ili3ii5lJlfl3J8J,lf3 Agricultural Marketing, BRKR Buildings, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

¶19

Agricultural Market Committee,, Fruit fularket, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Person-in-charge.

¶20

The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh,, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Govt., Agricultural & Co-opn. (Mktg.ll) Dept., A.P. Secretariat, nrO3.rfPSSo*orNrs/RESpoNDENrs

¶21

WA NO: 347 OF 2011

¶22

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Lefters Patent^preferred against the Order^dated 154-2011passed in W. P. No. 1 9732/2002 on the file of the High Court. Between:

¶23

AND

¶24

Sri Amit Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Lakshminarayana Agarwal, R/o. Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Road No.2, H.No.9-1 1-1114, Kothapet, RR District. 4-'RESP.NDENT '* *r ro.i#,?ltlil#

¶25

S. Pandu Ranga Reddy, S/o. S. Madhava Reddy, Business, R/o. Flat No.402, Mithilia Enclave ,2-2-18146, D.D. Colony, Hyderabad-sO0 013.

It I ;

{

....RESPONDENT/ 2002

rhe Govt or Andhra^pradesh,, R"p. b/iE'b'"'r'ili3il5lJifl3J3Jr'J;2oF

¶31

Agricultural Marketing, BRKR Buildings, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

¶32

Agricultural Market Committee,, Fruit Market, Gaddiannatam, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Person-in-charge.

¶33

The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh,, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Govt., Agricultural

¶34

& Co-opn. (Mktg.ll) Dept. A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶35

...RESPON DENTS/RESPONOENTS

¶36

counsel for the Appellant: sRl Y. NAGAIAH, couNsEL FOR SRI N BHARAT BABU

¶37

(ln Both the Writ Appeals)

¶38

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI S. SATYAM REDDY (ln Both the Writ Appeals)

¶39

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 4: GP FOR AGRICULTURI: (ln Both the Writ Appeals)

¶40

Counsel for Respondent No. 3: SRI K UPENDER REDDY (ln Both the Writ Appeals)

¶41

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶42

{

¶43

i I

¶44

.TIIE HON'BLE TIII' CHIEF TUSTICIJ UIIAI BHUYAN

¶45

AND

¶46

THE HON' BLE SRI IT]STIC E C.V.BHA KAR REDDY

¶47

W.A.Nos.346 & 347 of 2011

¶48

COMMON JUDGMENT: per rhe Hon'bh t/te Chif Jutne rJ11a/ Bhtgan)

¶49

I-lcard Mr. Y.Nagaiah, Icarncd counsel representing

¶50

N4r. N.Bharat Babu, learned counscl lor rhe appellant.

¶51

I t is submrtted tl-rat norhing sluvivcs in these appcals lor

¶52

aci^judication

¶53

'l'hcrefore, the writ appeais are dismissed as inflructuous. N<r

¶54

COSi.S.

¶55

As a scquel, miscellaneous petiuons, pcnding if any, srand

¶56

dismisscd

¶57

¶58

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI DEPU //TRUE COPY// (9V tq "t,1,'/ SECTION OFFICER

¶59

To,

¶60

One CC to Sri N^{Bharat Babu Advocate IO-P-U-Q]^.} 2. O"e CC to Sri S Satvam^{ReddyAdvocate} tOl-UC.l3. One CC to Sri^{K Up6nderReddyAdvo-cate[OPUUj^.} 4. i;; 6dti" ci'r-dr^{As;cuttuie.'HighCourt'for the state of Telangana [oUT]} 5. Two CD Copies 6 One Spare CoPY MBC BS Prrc,,

i a

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1510912022

/...,
'"i -- g
.J
sj ii!
al I'
l.{J
cc,=l , COMMON JUDGMENT
\ ) I
WA NOS: 346 AND 347 OF 201'l
,:
,,h,-'

¶67

DISMISSING THE WRIT,APPEALS AS INFRUCTUOUS, WITHOUT COSTS

¶68

?^Nq. a\r'-\v"

Sri Amit Kumar Agarwal, R.R. District. v. S. Pandu Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad and 3 Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Amit Kumar Agarwal, R.R. District. v. S. Pandu Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad and 3 Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vaibhav Vs Joint Comm. of Income Tax Range 3 Hyd

M/s Badnnath Steels Private Limited Vs The Income Tax Officer

The Secretayr, Rta, Medchal Ranga Reddy Dist and Anothers Vs Korra Bhojiya Naik

Sri Amit Kumar Agarwal, Kothapet, Rr Dist. Vs N. Pulla Reddy, Rr Dist. and 4 Others

M/s. Vemulapalli Brothers Vs Assistant Commissioner (Central Taxes)

P.Sitaramaiah Vs a.Narender and 4 Others