The High Court dismissed the interlocutory application and writ appeal for want of prosecution as the appellant failed to appear and no explanation was provided, despite the caption 'for dismissal' being entered.
The Writ Appeal No. 38 of 2019 and Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2019 were dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.
HIGH COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY,THETHIRTEENTHDAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSANDANDTWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THECHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
|.A.NO.1 0F 2019
IN/AND WRIT APPEAL N O: 38OF 2019
writ Appeal underclause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the orderdated 25-09-)b18in W.P.No.34189 of 2018 on the file of the Highcourt'
Between:
Smt, GanamallaKalavathi, W/o.Shankar.Singh.Age 53 years'Occ Pump o".Ltoi EC No.0272364in MainWorkshop,Kothagudem Corporate-Area' 5i""iJr"",ii-cori[ries --companv Limited, ivo.HNo g-1-40,Babucarnp' Kotiagudem Town,Bhadradri KothagudemDistrict'
...APPellanUWritPetitioner
AND
...Respondents/ResPondents
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in suppo(of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto condone the delay of(60) days in presenting the Writ Appeal'
lA NO: 2 OF 2019
Petition under section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed insupportof the petition,the High court may be pleasedto
suspend the orderslassed by the Learned Single Judge ir \rV F No 34189 of ZOtA Oated 25-9-201)pending disposalof the abovewrit app:al'
Counsel for ther App'rllant: SRIGOPINATHLAKKINENI (Not |tresent)
Counsel for theiResl rondents:SRIJ.SRINIVASA RAO, SC for SCCL
The Court deliveredthe following:
I
{
THE HON'BLE THE CIIIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
LA.No.1 of 2019 in/and WRIT APPEAL No.38 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'bte the Chtef &r6tice Satish Chandra Shanno)
On 12 .O4 .2022, there was no appearance on behalf of
the appellant. Today the matter is appearing under the caption "for dismissal". In spite of the same, there is no
appearance on behalf of the appellant.
The interlocutory application and the writ appeal are
therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution.
To,
//TRUE COPY//
SD/.B.SATYAVATHI DEPUry RqGISTRAR
sEcrtoNrbrHcen
MRC
BS$
HIGH COIJRT
DATED:1:1104 2022
JUDGMENIT l.A.NO.1 CrF 2 )19 IN/AND WA.No.38 of ii019
i\ .:
:?)
15 stP ?lln
I
-,
DISMISSING I HE IA & WRIT APPEAL FOR NON.PRoSECUTION
a.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the absence of the appellant.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Ganamalla Kalavathi
Singareni Collieries Company Limited
Satish Chandra Sharma
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
