M/S.Bajaj Bakewell Udyog Private Limited, Haryana v. S.M. Sudhakar, R.R.Dist. and 3 Others

Telangana HC17 Nov 2023CC/41/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the petitioner sought punishment for alleged violation of interim ordersthis Court. The court found that the respondents had complied with the earlier order and its interim orders to implement the same, leading to the closure of the contempt case.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed as the respondents have implemented the interim orders passed by this court.

M/S.Bajaj Bakewell Udyog Private Limited, Haryana Vs… — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3303 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO. 41 OF 2017

¶7

Petition under Sections 10 lo 12 of Contempt^{of Courts Act 197'1 to punish} the respondents herein for^{willful, deliberatelyand disobeyingthe ordersof} Hon'ble Cou( dated 14.12.2016^{in WP.No.43315 of 2016.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s.Bajaj Bakewell Udyog Private^{Limited, G.T.Road,Fatehabad,Harya.na-125050} nbp. ui,ils Authorized Sigiatory^{Mr. V.Rajeshwar, S/o. late Rajalingam,Hindu,aged} about 61 years.

¶10

...CONTEMPTER/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . Mr. S.M. Sudhakar, S/o. Not Known the Petitioner' Manager and Authorized Signatory Mis. SRK^{Foods PrivateLimited, havingplace of business} "19991 N;5/1-2'8, Sy.No.42,^{Bonguluru Village, lbrahimpatnam,Ranga Redoy} District Telangana.

¶13

Shri. Mahesh Bhagat,^{S/o. Not known the pgtitioner,the} -^{Commissionerof} - Foiice, Rachakondi Cbmmissionerate, State of Telangana, Hyderabad'

¶14

Shri. Malla^{Reddy, S/o. Not known to the petitionel,the Assistqnt} Commissioner of^{Police,lbrahimpatnam, RachakondaCommlsslonerate,} State of Telangana,^HYderabad.

¶15

' Shri. Govind Reddy, onic"i-noiur,atrj-Fbr""^{S/o. Not} siaiion,-nrcnukondb^{knownto the} .petitioner, commissionerate^{the Station} state^House- of Telangana, HYderabad.

¶16

...CONTEMNORS/RESPONDENTS

¶17

For the Petitioner:^{SRI ASHOK RAM KUMAR' ADVOCATE(NOT PRESENT)}

¶18

For the Respondent^{No'1: SRIM' SASHIDHAR' ADVOCATE}

¶19

For the Respondent^{Nos' 2 to 4: AGP FOR HOME}

¶20

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

-- .---------

i rl I ii

TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶25

coNTEMPT CASE IIo.4l of 2017

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The petitioner filed this contempt case to punish the respondents for gross violation of the orders passed by this court in w.p.No.4331s of 2016 dated 74.12.2o16 invoking the provisions of sections ro to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, l9Z l.

¶28

When the matter taken up for hearing on 16. I l.2[23,rhere was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. To give one opportunity, posted to 12.11.2023 under the caption ,for dismissal,. In spite of the matter being listed under the caption Tor dismissal,, today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner in the mornrng and afternoon sessions.

¶29

I I

¶30

I.earned Assistant Government pleader for Home appcaring on behalf of the respondents submits that pursuanr to the interim order granted by rhis Courr dated 14.12.2o16in W.p.No.4331S of 2016, the Station House Officer, Adibatla police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate vide Lr.Dis.No.27O9 of 2Ol6 dated 16.12.2O16 opened the premises of the peHtioner, where th e rn goods are stored, and permitted the petitioner ,^ *-,,^ ,^-',' :"''" to t"ut back the goods and the respondents have impremented the o., Jers passed by this Court.

¶31

¶32

4 In view of the specific submissions made by the learned Assistant Government pleader basing upon the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, no further adjudication is requirecl

¶33

5 Accordingly, the contempt case is closed.

¶34

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed

¶35

¶36

sD/- K. SA|LESH| DEPUW REG|TRAR //TRUE COPY// ,.' //

,.' //

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 One CC to SRI ASHOK RAM KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶41

2 One CC to SRI M. SASHIDHAR, Advocate [OPUCI 3 Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTJ

¶42

4 Two CD Copies

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711112023

T 1t S1 4tF
( o
J 6(
>
oo O B JAN 2024
o
llr* *";i
i:'

¶49

ORDER

¶50

GG.No.41 of 2017

¶51

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE

¶52

Oqre)
9,
3 \ A-

M/S.Bajaj Bakewell Udyog Private Limited, Haryana v. S.M. Sudhakar, R.R.Dist. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Bajaj Bakewell Udyog Private Limited, Haryana v. S.M. Sudhakar, R.R.Dist. and 3 Others

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

Fisheries Co-operative Society, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

K.Vinayalka Lakshmi, Vs Prl.Secy., Mines and Geology, Dept., Hyd., and 3 Others

The Kuravi Gram Panchayat, Vs Bukya Ramu

Kacham laxmi Narsavva Vs The District Collector (Panchayat Wing)

Sri. Jangala Kanthaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Dheeravath Kumar Vs The State of Telangana