Allowed

M.Raghunandan Rao, Hyderabad v. M/S. Vediri Estates Private Limited, Hyd and Another

Telangana HC16 Jun 2023CA/6/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt appeals filed against an order holding appellants guilty of willful noncompliance with a stay pending pending proceedings. The Division Bench held the single judge erred in condemning litigating before a superior court and set aside the contempt order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.03.2017 set aside; appellants discharged of contempt.

M.Raghunandan Rao, Hyderabad Vs M/S. Vediri Estates… — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH^{DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYTHREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE^{CHIEFJUSTICEUJJALBHUYAN} AND THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶5

CONTEMPT AP^{PEAL Nos :6 &7 OF 2047}

¶6

Contem t Appe al No.6^{ol 2017:}

¶7

Contempt Appeal^{Under Section19 of Contemptof Courts Act against} the order dated 15-03-2017^{in cc No. 985 of 2016 on the file ofthe High court.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

M.Raghunandan Rao,, District^{Collector,R.R.District, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.}

¶10

... Appellant / Respondent No.1 in CC^{No. 985 of 2016}

¶11

AND

¶12

M/S. Vediri Estates Private Limited,^{Rep. by its Managing Director,V.Pandu} Ranga Reddy S/o. V. Siva Reddy, aged^{64 years, R/o.3-4-496, Jyothi} Arcaie, Bark-atpura, Hyderabad.^{.. ResPondent /uPtll5;r";,,} ""

¶13

Sri J. Srinivas, Tahsildar, Serilingampally^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶14

...RESPONDENT/ Respondent No-2 in CC^{No.985 of 2016}

¶15

( Respondent No. 2 herein is not a necessary^party )

¶16

APPL. NO: 3s4OF 2017

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the operation of order dt.^'15.3.2017 in^{C.C.No. 985 of 2016, in the} interest of^justice.

¶18

lA NO:^'l OF 2018

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filedⁱⁿ support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} vacate the order of the interim suspension^{dated 05-06-2017 made in application} No.354 of 2017ⁱⁿ C,A.No.6 of 2017

¶20

CONTE MPT APPEA LNO:7OF2 017

¶21

contempt Appear Urrder Section 19 of contempt of courts Act against the order dated 15-03'20 17 in cc No. 985 01201;;; the file of the High court . Between:

¶22

SRI J. SRIVIVAS, Tahs,rldar, Serrlrnga rI prr lly lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶23

AND

¶24

...AppLtCANT/ Respondent No. 2 in CC No. 985 of 2016

¶25

1 tU/S VEDIRT ESTAI ES^ pRtVATE Ltt\flTED, B"!, Uy its Managing Direclor, V^pandu Rarqa Reddy s/o. V Srva Ril;;d rja v.juii, nl". I:.iligd,^jv",jlni

¶26

Arcade. Bark.,lpura, Hyder:rbarl

¶27

...RespondenU petitioner in cc no. 985 of 2016

¶28

M.Raghunar-dan Rao,, District Collector, R,R. District, Khairatabad. Hyderabad.

¶29

( Respondent No 2 herein^is not_a necessary party) .. ResDondent / Respondent No.1 in CC No. SBb ot 2016

¶30

lA NO: 1 oF 2018

¶31

Petition under Ser;tion^.151 cpc prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support oi the petrtion. th. Hign^"Couii mai oe pleaseo to vacate the order of .the rnterim suspensrc,n dated 05-06 2ai7 nade rn'npprcation No.355 of 201r in C.A.No.7 of 2017 .

¶32

APPL. NO: 355 0F 2017

¶33

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support or the_petirion, the iliql court may be preased t";i;"1 il" operation of order dt. i5.3 2017 in c.c No. 985'of 2016, rn t6e intbresi oiir.tt"l"o p"..

¶34

Counsel for the Appellant in both SRI SRIPATHI SANTOSH KUMAR, GOVT. PLEADER ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in both : M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES (None appeared )

¶36

The Court made the foilowing: COMMON ORDER

¶37

TIIE II N'BLE T STICE UIIAL BHUYAN

¶38

AND

¶39

TIIE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE N T IIKARAMII Contem tA cal Nos.6 17

¶40

COMMON JUDGMENT: t1\a tJr tl,a h/, t/,c^(/,,1r ln,ri.r t ptt ttlnr.n;

¶41

Fleard Mr. Sripathi Santosh Kumar, learned Govemment

¶42

Pleader anached to the office of the leamed Additional Advocate General for the appellants.

¶43

None has appeared for respondent No.1- M/s. Vediri Estates Private Limited though the said respondenr has been served and is represented by N4/s. Bharadwaj Associates, whose name is reflected in the causelist.

¶44

These appeals under Section 19 of the Contempt of Couns Act, l97l have been preferred against the order darcd 15.03.2017 passed by the leamed Single Judge in Contempt Case No.985 of 2016 holding the appellanr to be guilry of contempt of order dated 17.03.2016 passed in \7.P.No.15056 of 2014; sentencing them to pay fine of Rs.2000.00; and in defaulr of payment of fine, ,to^{suffer simple imprisonmentfor a periodof four weeks.}

¶45

)

¶46

On C5.C6.2012. tlris^(lrurt had admitted thc^appealsand granted interin- slspe rtsiort

¶47

W.P.No.t5O56 oi 2C14 *,as filed by rcspondent No.l^{as the} writ petitioncr seeking a tlirection to the^{respondentsarrayed} therein (appellants hcrein) t,r^{incorporate irs nameas the ownerand} possessor of the land admeasuring^{Acs.24.35guntas in Survey} No.77 of FlaLeezpet Village. Scnlingampalli^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy} District in all the revenue rccords^{including pahanisby delenngthe} existing entry'( )ovemment lxnd'.

¶48

It is st,rted tl.rat thc said writ petition^{was allowed} on 17 .03.2016 and a directiort^{rvas issuedto the respondenmtherein} (appellants herein) to incolporate the name of^{the petitionertherein} (respondent Nc,.1 here in) as per the prayer made.

¶49

Alleging u,illful and c'leliberate noncompliance to^the aforesaid order. the related contemPt^{case was filed in which the} appellants were found grrilty of contempt and^sentenced accordingly. Ht'nce, thc appe':rl.

¶50

¶51

It is submittecl befor-e Lrs that the land in question is subject matter oi C.S.No.14 of tgs8 which is sdll pending before this Coun for final closure though orders have been passed therein from time to time including certain preliminary decrees and final decrees as to ponions of land covered by the suit schedule ProPerty.

¶52

It has been brought ro our notice that against the order of the leamed Single Judge in the writ proceedings, State has filed !7.ANo.579 of 2016 in which an order was passed by the Division Bench on 17.08.20L6 rhar name of respondent No.1 may be recorded in the revenue records as the owner of the land in question but the same would be subject ro ourcome of the writ appeal which order has been complied with. It is stated that the writ appeal is sdll pending disposal before this Coun.

¶53

10.^tVhen CS.No.l4 of 1958 is awaiting final closure before this Coun and the order of the leamed Single Judge dated 17.03.2016 passed in !7.P.No.15056 of 2014 has been modified by the

¶54

-l

¶55

Division Bcnch u'hich ,rdcr has been^{compliedwrth by the} appellants, ,re ,rtr: of thc^I itu'that^{the leamedSingle} Judge^{was not} justified in [olding the appellants guilty of contemPt^{and imposing} the scntenct' upon tl-Icrtt.

¶56

Accordingly, the^{inrpugnedorder dated15.03.2017passed by} the leamed Single Judgc^{in ContemptCase No'985of 2016 is} herebyset aside. Appellants^{are dischargedof contemPt'}

¶57

C-onst'quently, the^{appeals are allowed. No costs'}

¶58

As a sequel, miscellaneous Petitions,^{pending if any, stand}

¶59

closed.

¶60

//TRUE^COPY'/

¶61

"'*iS+-#tiS'[iB (19 SECTTON^OFFICER

¶62

T"IJ#lSeXiffi gil;,i,Bs;ilR;d41lb[T,ff^{ili?J::::lll13;Y''l'*'} iyderabad , , serilinoampalty^{Mandal. Ranga Reddlr Distrtct} Hish^{courtrorthe stateor}

¶63

? ?[,?;3#,X'+1il;tff;il'8?;'rLRii'

¶64

Advocate to^{Pu cl}

¶65

- lisat^{il,!'s;,.fxxBf?iJl"o"*"''}

¶66

Two^{CD CoPies}

HIGH COURT

DATED:16/0612023

COMMON JUDGMENT

CONTEMPT APPEAL Nos.6 &7 of 2017

¶72

H E S IA r
s c
( o
)
,c .>
Jc
I 5 J Ut 2Un a)
,
* o
F T (. r,

¶73

ALLOWING THE BOTH CONTEMPT APPEALS c.(,.4 5.,

M.Raghunandan Rao, Hyderabad v. M/S. Vediri Estates Private Limited, Hyd and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Raghunandan Rao, Hyderabad v. M/S. Vediri Estates Private Limited, Hyd and Another

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

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 Vs Sri. Krishna Chigullapally

M/s R.R. Projects Vs The Superintendent

Macharla Mohan Goud Vs Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar, I.A.S.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 Vs Sri. Lokesh Chigullapally

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 Vs Sri Harinath Chigullapally

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 Vs Sri. Ramesh Chigullapally