Allowed

M/s. Tata-Aldesa(Jv) v. Union of India

Telangana HC12 Jun 2023WP/13264/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought an extension of time to comply with a previous order dated 12.06.2023. The court granted an additional 30 days for compliance, accepting the respondent's explanation regarding internal transfers.

What did the court decide?

Extension of 30 days from the date of the order for compliance with the order dated 12.06.2023 passed in W.P. No. 13264 of 2019.

M/s. Tata-Aldesa(Jv) Vs Union of India — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^{3311 I}

¶2

TELANGANA HIGH^{couRr .?T} l+EDSIiIioF

¶3

TUESDAY,THEUg^t^T5t^i,s?^i.t-?5?EtI=r',ut

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE^{HONOURABLE SllNt'sTlcEP'SAM KOSHY}

¶6

THE^{HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICELAXMI NARAYANA ALTSHETTY}

¶7

l.A. NO^{.1 0F2} 023 IN

¶8

wRIT PETITlo NNO^:13 264^OF2019

¶9

""T"***rl'#'t#P:i'r"s%1"?rt'-t""f'3:1il{l^{Ministrv or Finance' Department} rax'^{circre - 10 (1)' sth Froor' r'r' rowers'A'c'}

¶10

'^{B'r*",."Ift:'J?X.%fli;"'*}

¶11

.Il3ri,p53lfi :gi'?'i:l:ti:'*:",T8--SJ.%f^:i"":5"?'i":"or'rrrowers'

¶12

.....PETITIONERS'RESPONDENTS

¶13

:).",",AdesaJV,Mh.eiilrgg;[!:ff"!tl:'].HJtsin$3:'fln"#.i:'3i.tf cnn oo3. Telangana'^trtc rrt"ril^{slo.tvlir Hafeezuddt}

¶14

....RESpoNDENT/pETtfloNER

¶15

Petition^{under Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the^{affidavitfiledin supportof the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} grant further Period^{of 2 months'}

¶16

This^{petition coming on for hearing'upon perusing the petition and affidavit} filed in^{suPPortthereofand uPonreadingthe Order dated 12'062023in} Sri DeePak^ChoPra' W.P.No.13264^{of 2019 uponhearingthe argumentsof} Counsel^{for the} SeniorCounselrepresentingforSriJ.V'Prasadlearned

¶17

petitioners and of sri G.Narendra chetty Advocate for the^{Respondent, the court} made the following:^ORDER

¶18

Thisapplicationisfiledseekingextensionoftimeforcomplianceoftheorder passedbytheDivisionBenchofthisCourtinW.P.No.l3264of2019decidedon 12.06.2023, wherein^{the writ petition was allowed directingthe respondents to take a} decision within^{a periodof two (02) months'}

¶19

Today,whenthematteristakenupforconsideration,thelearnedSenior standing counsel^{for the Department submits that on account of certain transfers in} the Department,^{the order could not be complied with within a stipulatedperiod,} given an extension of time'^{the samewouldbe complied with'}

¶20

Consideringtheentirefactualmatrixofthecase,moreparticularly,the reasons mentioned^{in the accompanyingaffidavit and the explanationgiven by the} learnedSeniorStandingCounselfortheDepartment,weareoftheopinionthat given a further extension^{of time i.e., 30 days, the respondent should be in a position} to comply with^{the order dated12.06.2023 passedin W P No'1 3264 o'f 2019'}

¶21

Accordingly,thel.A.standsallowed,directingtherespondentstocomplywith theorderdatedl2.06.2023passedbytheDivisionBenchofthisCourtin W.P.No.13264 of^{2019 within an extended period of 30 days from today.}

¶22

SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTADLT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qD SECTION OFFICER

¶23

¶24

1 TheSecretary,Unionoflndia,lvlinistryofFinance,DepartmentofRevenue' Central Secretariat,^{New Delhi.}

¶25

2 in. Or.-Co-rrissioner^{of lncome Tax, Circle - 10 (1)' Sth Floor' l T' Towers'} A.C. Guards, HYderabad^{- 04.} frr.'piiniiorf Commissioner^{of lncome Tax-6, A Block, 6th Floor' lT Towers'} R.C. Ouaris,^{Masab Tank'Hyderabad - 500 004'T-e-langana'}

¶26

1. One CC to Sri G.Narendra^{Chetty. Advocate[OPUCI} 5. One CC to Sri J.V.Prasad,^Advocate [OPUC] o. Two CD Copies

SA GJP

{

\ \

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910912023

ORDER

l.A.No.1 ot²⁰²³ IN

WP.No.13264^{of 2019}

¶35

<br>11 DtT i.-,il

¶36

ALLOWING^{THE I.A.}

¶37

WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶38

(9
q.
)

M/s. Tata-Aldesa(Jv) v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Tata-Aldesa(Jv) 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

Virtusa Consulting Services Private Limited. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

R. Lakshmi Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. R.Karunakar Reddy Vs The Commissioner of Central Tax

T. Ramesh Son of Venkata Reddy Vs Sri. N. Sreedhar

M/ s. Sandor Tescon Aqua Private Ltd., Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Janga Muralidhar Reddy Vs The Union of India