Dismissed

M/s Vijay Silk Mills v. M/s Archid Plywood Ltd.

Telangana HC7 Jul 2022WA/425/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal and connected interim applications. The court held that the appellant's grievance regarding judicial observations on government auction procedures did not constitute an error or infirmity, noting that the original writ petitioner had not appealed and the subject matter was from 2003.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal and Interlocutory Applications 1, 2, & 4 were dismissed. No order as to costs.

M/s Vijay Silk Mills Vs M/s Archid Plywood Ltd. — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶8

|.A.NOS.1.2&40F2022

¶9

IN/AND

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO: 425 OF 2022

¶11

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order dated 14-03-2022 passed in W P No 5969 of 2007 on the file of the High Court.

¶12

Between:

¶13

M/s Vijay Silk Mills, Having it Office at H. No.21-7-867, Ghansi Bazaar, Near High Court, Hyderabad- 500002 Rep. by its Partner Smt. Ranjana Devi Goyal.

¶14

...APPELLANT/IMPLEAO PETITIONER/ PROPOSED RESPONDENT NO.2

¶15

AND

¶16

1 M/s Archid Plywood Lld,5-9-22170, (New No. 257), Adarshnagar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director Ramesh Kumar Dhir, S/o S.L. Dhir aged about 52 years.

¶17

....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶18

AP State Financial Corporation, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager, Ranga Reddy District, East Branch Ground Floor, 5-9-194, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad.

¶19

...RES PON D ENT/RES PON D ENTRESPOND EN T

¶20

l.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition Under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to grant leave by permitting the petitioner to challenge the impugned Order dated 14.O3.2022 in writ petition No. 5969 of 2007 to the extent of para No. 20,^pending disposal of writ appeal.

¶22

l.A.NO:2 OF 2022

¶23

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the Order dated 14.03.2022 passed in writ petition No.5969 of 2007, pending disposal of main writ appeal.

¶24

|.A.NO:3 OF 2022

¶25

Petition Under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the operation of para No. 20 of the Order dated 14.O3.2022 passed in writ petition No.5969 of 2007, pending disposal of writ appeal.

¶26

LA.NO:4 OF 2022

¶27

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of (80) days in filing the above appeal.

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant : M/S.CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES

¶29

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 :SRI.PRABHAKAR PERI

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI.M.HAMSA RAJ

¶31

The Court made the following ORDER

¶32

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN AND

¶33

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶34

I.A.Nos. 1. 2 and 4 of 2022 inland WRIT APPEAL No.425 of 2022

¶35

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble rhe ChieJ Justice Ujjal Bllugan)

¶36

Heard Mr. B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prabhakar Peri, learned counsel lor respondent No.1; and Mr. M.Hamsa Raj, learned counsel for respondent No.2 -^{AndhraPradesh State Financial Corporation.}

¶37

This appeal has been preferred along with a leave application assailing the legality arld validity of the fina.l order dated 14.O3.2022 passed by the iearned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.5969 of 2OO7 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner in which respondent No.2 was the sole respondent.

¶38

Though an implead petition was filed by the appellant, the same was not entertained by the learned Single Judge in view, of dismissal of the writ petition.

¶39

I (

¶40

At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that stncto sensu appellant is not aggrieved by the outcome of the related writ petit.ion, but is aggrieved by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 20 of the final order dated 14.03.2022, which reads as under:

¶41

"2O. In view of the above proposition of lau,, the Corporation being a Government Undertaking should endeavour to see that the best price for the subject property is realized by way of auction or calling for open tenders giving adequate publicity."

¶42

On going through the same, we find that learned Single Judge had opined that respondent No.2, being a Government Undertaking, should endeavour to see that the best price for the subject propert5r is realized by way of auction or calling for open tenders giving adequate pubiicity.

¶43

¶44

Learned Senior Counsel contends that appellant had submitted a proposal for One Time Settlement (OTS) before the second respondent and such observation of the learned Single Judge will come in the way ol consideration of the / proposal submitted by the appellant.

¶45

)

¶46

At this stage, Mr. Hamsa Raj, learned counsel for respondent No.2, submits that OTS proposal of the appellant was rejected way back on 28.03.2017.

¶47

We may mention that the subject matter of the related writ petition was public auction of schedule property which took place as far back as in the year 2003. At this distant point of time we are not inclined to resurrect the same. Writ petitioner i.e., respondent No. 1 who had challenged the auction has not filed appeal. In any case, we do not find any error or in{irmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

¶48

9 . Writ appeal and the interlocutory applications are accordingly dismissed.

¶49

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

¶51

SD/-CH.VENKATESWARULU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFF,tl$"-

¶52

To 21 . . one One CC CC to to SRt.pRABHAK4tiERt, M/s.CHANDRI-S_E!lAW eouo"rGl6ptj6tOFFTCES, Advocare topucl 43. . Two one oC CD Copiesto SRt.M.HAI\4SA RAJ, Aauocite 1'Oe[rC".) E. One spare copy S.A BS

I 'l

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710712022

ORDER

I.A.NOS.1 ,2 & 4 0F 2022

¶61

E::
,?
J
[ 5 $'iP ?Il?l

¶62

!N/AND

¶63

WA.No.425 of 2022

¶64

DISMISSINC; THE I.A'S

¶65

AND WRIT APPEAL

¶66

M/s Vijay Silk Mills v. M/s Archid Plywood Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Vijay Silk Mills v. M/s Archid Plywood Ltd.

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. Gulf Oil Lubricants India Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Vanaja Electrical Appliances (P) Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s.Tss Impex Private Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer and another

Mr. Yellaiah Setty Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and 2 others

Tippani Ashok Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 7 Others

M. Sukanya Vs The State of Telangana And 4 Others