Disposed

Sri B. Narsing Rao v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC29 Mar 2022WP/15740/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Tribunal's failure to hear an appeal or pass an interim order against an arbitration award. The court disposed of the petition at the admission stage, directing the respondent to consider the interim application on merits expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent No.2 to consider the pending interim application and pass necessary orders on merits within two weeks.

Sri B. Narsing Rao Vs State of Telangana — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF^IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{A. ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 15740 OF 2022

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

1 Sri B. Narsing Rao, S/o. Late^{B. Ramaiah, aged 56 years R/o. H^No' 16-5-} 370, Dabeerpura Farhat Nagar, Near^{Pochamma TempleCharminar,} Hyderabad 500 04.

¶8

2 Sii P. Ramu, S/o. Panthula Satyanarayana,^{aged 52 years R/o.H No. 12-1-} 4121 ,2 Rr, Lalapet Near Railway Station,^{SecunderabadUOO.lllr,r,O*=*a}

¶9

AND

¶10

1 State of Telangana, Rep by^{its Principal Secretary, Cooperative Societies} Department Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶11

2 The Chairman, Cooperative Societies^{Tribunal, Telangana State} Chandravihar, Hyderabad

¶12

3 M/s. The A.P. Rdjarajeswari^{l,4ahila Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., (U/L) 7-1-} 70, Dharam Karam Road, Ameerpet^{Hyderabad 500 016 Rep by its lvlanaging} Director

¶13

4 The Assistant Registrar/ Arbitrator,^{Cooperative Societles, Ameerpet} Hyderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof lndra praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction more^{particularly one in the natureof} writ of lvlandamus, declare the^{action of the 2nd respondentin not hear the} appeal and not^passing any^{interimorder in lA No. 7 ot 2022 in CTA No. 2 of} 2022 filed by the^{petitioners againstthe Awardin ARC No. 01/2020-uB, dated} 15.03.2021^passed by^{the 4th respondent,as illegal and u nconstitutio na I and} consequently set^{asidethe awarddated15 03 2021 in ARC No'01/2020-UB} passed by the 4th resPondent

¶16

ll2ll

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} stay the operation of the Award dated^{15.03.2021in ARC No 01/2020-UB passed} by the 4th respondent,^pending disposal^{of the main writ petition}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl.^{SRIKANTH PULIPAKA}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP^{FOR COOPERATION}

¶21

The Court at the stage of admission^{made the following: ORDER}

¶22

l'l I t,t I toN' Ilt.u sR t,, us't-t c 1,.,,.,\ Bt r I st r Ft K tr r,t l)r)y \ ttr.t' P[_.t't1't ON \o. I 5710 ol' 2022

¶23

OItDF,IT:

¶24

Heald lcarned counsel titr pclitiorrers and learnecl Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing on behall of the respondents. With their consent, the preserrt Writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶25

Questioning the action of the respondent No.2 _ Chairman, Cooperative Societies Tribunal, Hyderabad, in not hearing the appeal and not passing any interim order in I.A.No.7 oI'2022 in CTA.No.2 ol,2022liled by rhc petirioners against tlrc Award in ARC.No.0l/2020-LlB clatccl i-s.0:1.2021 passed by the resltonclcnt No.4 _ Assisrant Registrar/Arbitrator., Coclperative Societies, Anteerpct, Hyderabad, the petitioners have flled the present Writ petirion.

¶26

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the I.A.No.7 of 2022 in CTA.No.2 of 2022 filed by the petitioners seeking stay of the Award in ARC.No.0l/2020-UB,

¶27

¶28

dated 15.03.202I has not becn disltosed ol'by the responclcnt \o.2 t ill clatc.

¶29

[laving regarcl to the above rnade sirburission" u,ithriut

¶30

going into tlie merits or denterits o1'the case. this Writ petition

¶31

is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to consider the l.A.No.7 o12022 in CTA.No.2 of 2022 filed by the peritioners

¶32

on 17.02.2022, and pass necessary orders strictly on merits, as

¶33

expeditiously as possible, prel'erably, within a period of two (2) weeks fl'orn the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

Miscellaneous applications. i1' an1, pcncling. shall stancl

¶35

closed. l'helc shall bc no ordcr as to costs.

¶36

To,

¶37

SD/.K. AMMAJI ASSISTANJSEGISTRAR L-1) SECTION OFFICER

¶38

i/TRUE COPY//

¶39

I The Principal Secretary, Cooperative^{Societies Department, State of} Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶40

2 The Chairman, Cooperative Societies Tribunal,^{Telangana State} Chandravihar, Hyderabad

¶41

3 The lvlanaging Dlrector, M/s. The^{A.P. Rajarajeswari Mahila Cooperative} Urban Ban-k L-td.,^(U/L), 7-1-70,^{Dharam Karam Road, Ameerpet Hyderabad} 500 016.

¶42

4 The Assistant Registrar/ Arbitrator,^{Cooperative Societies, Ameerpet} Hvderabad

¶43

5 Ohe CC to Sri Srikanth Pulipaka,^Advocate IOPUCI 6 Two CCs to GP for Cooperation, High Court^{for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶44

7 Two CD Copies B One Spare Copy

CHR

HIGH COURT

DATED:2910312022

ORDER

1r.rt S1,,.rJ;.-'
(o <br>2022
+',

¶50

W.P.No.15740 of 2022

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITTON AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS

¶52

l7f\Ir/
<br>2nZl----
ffi'?r

Sri B. Narsing Rao v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B. Narsing Rao v. State of Telangana

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

Kallem Chokka Reddy Vs Sri. Narasimha Murthy

M/s.New Jaibhavani Traders and Commission Agent Vs The State of Telangana

Chinthulla Chinna Ramulu and 2 Others Vs Sri Amoy Kumar, IAS

Rasula Koteshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Manthani Division Handicapped Welfare Society Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited.and 2 Others

Chittimalla Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others