Dismissed

M/s Sanghi Polymers Pvt. Ltd., v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation

Telangana HC7 Nov 2023WP/11363/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana, in Special Original Jurisdiction, dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Sanghi Polymers Pvt. Ltd. against the ESI Corporation and the Government of Andhra Pradesh as infructuous, noting no substantive work remained in the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs.

M/s Sanghi Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Employees… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11363 OF 2012

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s Sanghi Polymers Pvt. Ltd, Sanghi Nagar, Hayathnagar Mandal, Rep. by^its Manager (Legal), Sri. P. Balakrishna, S/o Sri. P. Suryanarayana, Aged 51^years, Occ: Manager(Legal), Resident of Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Employees' State lnsurance Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Director, 5-9-23, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Employees State lnsurance Corporation, Rep. by its Deputy Director, 5-923, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment Training and Factories Department, Secretariat, 2nd Floor, Saifabad' Hvderabad-04

¶14

...RES'.NDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be} pleased to call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the^proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide^Proceedings No.AP/l\IEC/52- 00-023455-000-0203, dated 09-02-2012, demanding a sum^of Rs.14,27,9171- as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and contrary to the^proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in GO Rt.No.1101, dated 17^-O7 -2009 and^violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and^{further hold that the petitioner} is not liable to pay any amount and the respondent are^liable to^refundthe amount recovered from the Petitioner company

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2012(WPMP . NO: 14340 OF 20121

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated rn the affidavit filed in suppcrt of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleasedto}

¶18

direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to adjust the amount recovered from the petitioner company towards contributions from 18.07.2009 to till this date by suspending the impugned orders issued under Section 45-A vide proceedings AP/iMEC/52-00-023455-000-0203, dated 09.02.2012 pending disposal of the main writ petition in the interest of justice

¶19

l.A. NO:^'l OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 14339 OF 2012)

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to initiate any coercive steps against the petitioner company, pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 19644 OF 20141

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to take coercive steps against the petitioner company in pursuance of proceedings dated 09-5-2014 and 13-05-2014, without furnishing the details of the amounts already recovered and without adjusted toward contributions payable by the petitioner company from 18-07-2009

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: SRI B. G. RAVINDER REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR LABOUR

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO.l 1363 of 2Ol2

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that nothing survives in this writ petition.

¶31

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shatl be no order as to costs

¶32

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall s,and crosed

¶33

TJ,1.?[fi{FJ"[1Hi[ t/ "rRuE^{coPY" ^""':'ffi*oFFlcER}

a ;Fffi^;';insana

To,

; 91*i"f,;fti'-*ffi

VY BM BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711112023

ORDER

e S TAr€ a
^
q
N0\l /,-llJ o
3 23 .b
s
*
I gu
OI:S PAlC

¶43

WP.No.11363 of 2012

¶44

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶45

+"T(4 Hfzl\t\D

M/s Sanghi Polymers Pvt. Ltd., v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sanghi Polymers Pvt. Ltd., v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation

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

M. Bal Singh Died per Lr Vs Apsrtc, Hyderabad and Another

M/S.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Ravula Laxmaiah and Anr.

Rapani Ramulamma Vs Shaik Mahaboob (Age Major)

Kombattula Lakshmidhar Vs Telangana State South Power Distribution Corporation Ltd.

M/S.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs M/S.Sharada Mechanical Engineering,Hyd,and 2

Malka Nagesh Ram Nagar, Mancherial and 19 Others Vs the Northern Power Distri Co. Ltd. Cmd Warangal and Another