Allowed

Smt. S. Rajya Lakshmi v. Union of India

Telangana HC4 Feb 2022WP/19143/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a docket order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Court set aside the order, directed the Tribunal to receive specific documents, and vacated the interim stay previously granted.

What did the court decide?

The docket order dated 16.04.2018 was set aside; the Tribunal was directed to receive documents on costs of Rs. 1000; the interim stay granted on 11.06.2018 was vacated.

Smt. S. Rajya Lakshmi Vs Union of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 19143 OF 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. S. Rajya Lakshmi, W/o. Late S. l\ladhusudan Rao, Aged about 62^years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Plot No.39, Durga Nagar Colony,^{Panjagutta, Hyderabad.}

¶8

[,4r. S.K. Anand, S/o. Late S. l,4adhusudan Rao, Aged^about 40^years,Occ. Employee, R/o. Plot No.39, Durga Nagar Colony, Panjagutta,^Hyderabad. Presently residing at USA, Rep. by her GPA Holder Smt, S.Rajya^Lakshmi.

¶9

N4R. S. Bhanu Prasad, S/o. Late S.l,4adhusudan Rao, Aged about^{45 years, Occ.} Employee, R/o. Plot No.39, Durga Nagar Colony,^{Panjagutta,Hyderabad.} Presently residing at USA Rep.by her GPA Holder Smt. S. Rajya^Lakshmi

¶10

,..PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary,^{New Delhi.}

¶13

UCO Bank, Hyderabad lvlain Branch, Rep by its Authorized Officer,^5-2-908, Pushpanjali Complex, Koti, Hyderabad.

¶14

M/s. Sai Leela Mining and t/inerals Pvt Lts, Rep by^{its NilanagingDirector, 107,} Geetanjali Apartments, Yousaufguda,^Hyderabad.

¶15

Mr. tt4.T.R. Chowdary, Managing Director,^{107, GeetanjaliApartments,} Yousaufguda, Hyderabad.

¶16

Smt. l,4. Padma, Director, 107, Geetanjali^{Apartments, Yousaufguda,Hyderabad}

¶17

...RESPONDE NTS

¶18

Petition under A/ticle 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be pleasedto} issue a writ or order or direction or wrlt of^{CERTIORARI,callingfor records and to} declare that the docket order dated. 16.04.2018 in^{lA.No484/2017in} OA.No.101/2001 on the file of^{DebtsRecovery Tribunal-1,at Hyderabad has not in} accordance with law and illegal^{and consequently set-asidethe same in the interest} of^justice.

¶19

IA NO: 2018

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court maybe pleased to stay all} further^proceedings in OA.No.101^{12001on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-1,at} Hyderabad,^pending disposal^{of the writ petition.}

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased to order for} steps.to service notices on^{respondents3 to 5 through paper publicationin the} interests of^justice.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶24

PetitionunderSectionlslcPcprayingthatintheCilCUmstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto delete the} name of the^{petiiioner/respondentno.1 i.e the Secretary, Governmentof lndia'} oepartmentofFinancialservlcesfromlhearrayofrespondentno.linWPNo.l9143 of 2018.

¶25

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶26

Between:

¶27

UCO Bank, Hyderabad^{MainBranch, Rep by its Authorized Offlcer, 5-2-908,} Pushpaniali Cbmplex,^{Koti, Hyderabad.}

¶28

...Petitioner/ResPondent^No'2

¶29

AND

¶30

Smt. S. Rajya^{Lakshmi,W/o. Late S, IVadhusudan Rao,Aged. about,62} ,years' oiC. nousei'iite,^{PJo. Plot No.39, DurgaNagar Colony, Panjagutta,Hyderabad'}

¶31

Mr. S.K. Anand, S/o.^{Late S. f\iladhusudanRao, Aged about41 years' ucc'} - E.oior"". RJo.' Ptot trtb.gg, Durga Nagar Colony' Panjagutta,. Hyderabad' pi"lJ,itv iesioinq at USA, Rep bv 6er GPA Holder Smt S Rajva Lakshmi ^

¶32

ivlR. 5.'iih;;Fii.io^{Slo. Ldte S.li]adhusudanRao Aged about 46 vears,occ'} - Emotovee, R/o. Plot No.39. Durga Nagar Colony lalrjagutta' Hyderabad Fi"!"ritrv iesioing at^{USA Rep bv h6r GPAHolderSmtS' Rajva Lakshmi}

¶33

...Writ Petitioners

¶34

Union of tndia,^{Rep. by its Secretary,NewDelhr.}

¶35

s. rr.l)i. sJi leeta^{H/|iriingina Minerals'Pvt Lts, Rep byrts ['4anagingDirector, 107'} Geetaniali Aoartmenis,^{Yousaufguda.Hyderabad}

¶36

lvlr. lvl.T,R. Chowdary,^{Irlanaging Director,107, Geetan]aliApartments'} Yousaufguda,^HYderabad.

¶37

7 S;t. M. Fadma,'Director,^{'107, Geetaniaii Apartments, Yousaufguda,Hyderabad}

¶38

..^. Respondents/Respondents^{1,3'4 & 5}

¶39

PetitionUnderSectionlslCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the HighCourt maybe pleasedto vacate the} int"i,. otd"r.^{grantedon 11 06.2018in l.A No lol 2O1Bin W P'No' 19'143 of 2018'}

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRIK.V.BHANU PRASAD}

¶41

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.'t: SRI N.RAJESHWAR RAO(AST SOLGEN)}

¶42

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.2: SRI P.G.S'PRASAD}

¶43

Counsel for the^{RespondentNos.3to 5: None Appeared}

¶44

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶45

/; /, L

¶46

HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN AND

¶47

HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶48

¶49

WRIT PETITION No.t9143 of 2O1a

¶50

ORDER: (Per Hon,bte Smt Justice p.Sree Sudhc,)

¶51

This writ petition is filed challenging the docket order dated 16.04.2018 passed in I.A.No.484 of 2O7Z tn O.A.No.101 of 2001 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-l at Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal'), rvherein petitioners mainly sought for the relief of stay of all further proceedings in O.A.No. 101 of 2001. Accordingly, stay was granted on 1 l.06.2Olg and still it is continuing.

¶52

Learned coulrsel for the petitioners herein represented, that they requested the Tribunal to receive five documents mentioned in the docket order. But, the Tribunal observed except the statement of accounts, the other documents sought for production are not relevant for adjudication of the claim. It was also observed that the interlocutory application was filed at a belated stage when the O.A. was coming up for arguments after closure of evidence and all the relevant documents were filed by the Bank and that the I.A., was filed to drag on the case. Accordingly, the I.A. 4g4 of 2OlT was disposed ofvide the docket order dated 16.04.201g.

¶53

¶54

Considering the arguments of petitioners counsel herein and the perusal oI documents sought to be filed by them belore the Tribunal, rve l'ecl it reasonable to set aside the docket orcler dated 16.04.2018, to considcr stage of liiing ol the documents. The Tribunal is directeri to receive the documents mentioned in Serial Nos.1 to 5, but on costs of Rs. IOOO/_ to State Legal Services

¶55

¶56

<br>

¶57

Authodty. Petitioners are at liberty to lead the evidence regarding

¶58

the said documents, if at all there is any requirement.

¶59

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The interim stay granted on 11.06.2018 stands vacated. Miscellaneous

¶60

applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶61

No costs

t.'

To,

,TRUE COPY'

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Hyderabad.

¶66

SD/.T,JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR dD

¶67

SECTION OFFICER

¶68

One CC to SRI K.V.BHANU^{PRASAD, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶69

One CC to SRI N.RAJESHWAR^{RAO,Asst.Sol.General} [OPUC]

¶70

One CC to SRI P.G.S.PRASAD,, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶71

Two C.D. Copies.

¶72

One Spare Copy.

l\ilRc

HIGH COURT

OATEDt04l02l2022

ORDER

WP.No.19143^{of 2018}

¶80

5 "r
1
/} I
II A r] nn
3 oq
r.)
I
i

¶81

DISPOSING OF THE^WRITPETITION

¶82

-0 @,?'tW&q-.--

¶83

Smt. S. Rajya Lakshmi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. S. Rajya Lakshmi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Momin Mahaboob Liaquath Ali Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd. and 5 Others

A. Murali Mukund Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

A. Murali Mukund Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Santosh Trading Company Vs The Kotak Mahindra Bank

Mrs. Bharathi Pathakoti Vs Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd., and another

M/s. Velagapudi Steels Limited. Vs Canara Bank (E Syndicate Bank)