Allowed

Yada Lingamma v. Yada Shilpa and 4 others

Telangana HC8 Sept 2023CMA/80/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order of civil imprisonment and attachment. The appellate court heeded the appellant's unconditional apology for alleged contempt, the appellant's advanced age and infirmity, and the respondent's failure to oppose the appeal, without delving into merits.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 01.10.2018 in I.A.No.1229 of 2018 in MVOP No.589 of 2010 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications close.

Yada Lingamma Vs Yada Shilpa and 4 others — Telangana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY^{OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY}

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS^{APPEAL NO: 80 OF 2020}

¶6

Appeal Under Order^{43 Rule1 of C P-C. againstthe JudgmentandDecree} dated01.10.20,18madeinlA.No.1229l2o18inlA.No.753/2018inM.V.o.P.No. 589/2010 on the^{file of the court of the XXVII Additionalchief Judge,city civil} Court, Secunderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Yada Lingamma, W/o^{Late Yada Sekhar, Age-dabout} .OS.^{yea1,^ftg,-p;!-} 37/18, Ka-vadiguda^{Main Road, Secunderabad.Represelted bI GPA Floloer} S. Ravinder, S/o S.^{Ramulu'Aged about 41 years, occ- tsuslness'Klo} Mylargadda, Sithafalmandi,^{Secunderabad'}

¶9

...AppellanURespondent-1

¶10

AND

¶11

'l.YadaShilpa,W/oLateYadaAshwinKumar,Agedabout36years,Occ-Nil' R/o-6-6-45711, Gandhi^{Nagar, BehindOld Praga Tools, Secunderabad'}

¶12

( RespondenUPetitioner)

¶13

G. Bhramaiah,^{S/o Pichaiah, R/o Door No 4/131, Gupta Nagar, Badvel,} Kadapa District.

¶14

Bajaj Allianz General^{lnsurance company Lt4 Representedby_itsDivisional}

¶15

ft4f,n'"g;r, Oivisional Office, Geplaza''Airfort Road, Yerawada, Pune-41 1006'

¶16

4.M/sC.M.S.Associates,RepresentedbyT.sangameshwarRao'R/oPlotNo. iSS, Sgt Colony, Gandhi^{Nagar, NewBakaram, Hyderabad'}

¶17

5.TataAlGGenerallnsuranceCompanyLimited,Representqd.b^yitsManaged,

¶18

P.O. Box No. 9407, Chakalamide Post Office, Mumbai - 400093' (above respondents- 2 to^{5 are not necessary parties)}

¶19

Respondents/ResPondents

¶20

lA NO: 3 OF 2O2O

¶21

Petition under Rule 32 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to Permit S. Ravinder S/o. S. Ramulu act on behalf of the appeal Petitioner as GPA in the above CMA.

¶22

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR, Advocate

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. J. PRABHAKAR for T. SHYAM KUMAR, Advocate

¶24

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHET.TY

¶26

CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.8O of 2O2O

¶27

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Si Justice Laxmi Narayana Alistetty)

¶28

This Appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2o18^passed in^{I.A.No. 1229 of 2O18in} I.A.No.753 of 2018 in MVOP No.589 of 20¹⁰ on^{the file of XXVII} Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court, Secunderabad.

¶29

The Tribunal vide order dated I6.05.2017^{passed in} MVOP No.589 of 2OlO awarded the compensation^of Rs.20,00,000/- to the mother of [he deceased.^{The Tribunal} permitted the mother of the deceased to withdraw a sum of Rs. 10,00,00O/- immediately and directed^{the remaining amount} to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalizcd bank^{for three} years.

¶30

Aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2017,^wife of^the deceased, who is respondent no.5^{in MVOPNo.589 of 20lO,filed} appeal vide MACMA No.25O8 of^{2017, speciltcally challenging}

¶31

¶32

the order of Tribunal with regard to non-awarding of compensation amount to her. She also frled MACMA MP No.4459 of 2Ol7 for stay of judgment and decree dated 16.05.2017. Hon'ble single Judge of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2017 in MACMA Mp No.44S9 of 2Ot7 had permitted rhe mother of the deceased (claimant in MVOp No.5g9 of 2O1O) to withdraw only a sum of Rs.S,0O,0O0/- as against the order of the MACT permitting her to withdraw a sum of Rs. IO,OO,OOO/_.

¶33

It appears that the claimant in MVOp No.Sg9 of 20lO had withdrawn the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest amounting to Rs.29 lakhs and odd, contrary to orders of the Hon'ble single Judge.

¶34

The wife of the deceased i.e., respondent no.S in MVOp No.589 ol 2010, filed I.A.No. 1229 of 2018 in MVOp No.589 of 2O 1O alleging that claimant/mother of the deceased had withdrawn entire amount deposited by the insurance company along with accrued interest is in violation of the orders passed in MACMA MP No.4459 of 2OlZ and prayed to send the claimanr to civil imprisonment for 30 days. The Tribunal vide order dated

-.--

t,)

01.10.2018 in I.A.No.1229 of^{2018 in I.A.No.753 of 2O18 in} MVOP No.589 of 2O 1O^punished the^{claimanttocivil} imprisonment for a^period of^{three monthsand further directed} the claimant to redeposit^{the amount withdrawn by her. The} MACT also ordered attachment^{of three properties belonging to} the claimant. Hence,^{this APPeal.}

¶39

Heard learned counsel Sri^{Challa Ajay Kumar for the} appellant and learned senior^{counsel Sri J.Prabhakar appearing} on behalf of Sri T.Shyam^{Kumar for the respondent no' 1-}

¶40

The learned counsel^{for appellant would submit thatthe} order passed by the^{Tribunal is erroneous, withoutjurisdiction} and contrary to the^{procedure established by law' He would} further submit that the Tribunal^{has assumedjurisdiction} ignoring the fact that the^{alleged contempt is with regard to} violation of ordbrs of the^{Honble High Courtdated 22 09 '2017} in MACMA MP No.4459^{of 2Ol7 in MACMA No 25O8 of 2O 17 and} therefore, the Tribunal ought^{not to have cntertained the} contempt proceedings. He further^{submittedthat no contempt} has been frled before the Honbte^{High Court and as such,the}

¶41

¶42

order dated 01.10.2018 is liable to be set aside. However, he submitted that entire amount withdrawn by the appellant/ mother of the deceased, except Rs.5,0O,O0O/-, has been redeposited before the MACT. The learned counsel for the appellant tendered unconditional apolory on behalf of appellant for the contempt, if any, committed by the appellant.

¶43

On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 did not oppose the appeal on the ground that the appellant is aged more than 80 years and she is bedridden and she is mother-in-law of the respondent no.1 and therefore, she does not wish to further prosecute the contempr proceedings at this stage.

¶44

Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel [or the appellant as well as learned senior counsel for respondent no. 1 and also in view of unconditional apolory tendered by the learned counsel for the appellant on behalf of the appellant, without going into merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that Appeal deserves to

¶45

¶46

be allowed and the order dated^{O I . 10.2018 is liable to be set} aside.

¶47

Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed^{and the order dated} 01.10.2018 passed in I.A.No.1229^{of 2018 in I.A.No'753of 20I8} in MVOP No.589 of 2010^{is set aside.Thereshallbe no order as}

¶48

to costs

¶49

I l. Pending miscellaneous applications^{ifany shall stand}

¶50

closed

¶51

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGI RAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City^{Civil Court,Secunderabad} (with records, if any)

¶56

One CC to SRl. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR,^Advocate [oPUC]

¶57

One CC to SRl. THATHOLU SHYAM^{KUMAR,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶58

Two CD Copies

PSR

tsA

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810912023

JUDGMENT

1$ 6 STAf6:
,
oo 0 7 FrB 202[ (l)
.s"

espa;lc\1 e0.

¶66

CMA.No.80 ot 2020

¶67

ALLOWING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS.

¶68

@&i"' 4 >*-

Yada Lingamma v. Yada Shilpa and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yada Lingamma v. Yada Shilpa and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Akhil Sai Cotton Traders Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Ginning and Oil Mill Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

The Commissioner of Income Ta v Vs Shri Ghanshyam Pamnani

Yada Lingamma Vs G. Bhramaiah, And 4 Others

Yada Shilpa Vs Yada Lingamma and 4 Others

M/s. Andhra Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Officer