Allowed

Shri T.Konda Reddy, S/o. Mohan Reddy, v. The Govt.of India reptd.

Telangana HC14 Aug 2023WP/18186/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana, in Special Original Jurisdiction, disposed of a writ petition and a complaint. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of Companies to furnish certified copies of Form No.32 related to the petitioners dated 18-10-2001, which the Petitioner claimed they were unable to obtain.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to furnish certified copy of Form No.32 pertaining to the petitioners dated 18-10-2001 within three weeks.

Shri T.Konda Reddy, S/o. Mohan Reddy, Vs The Govt.of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

IVONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 18186 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shri T.Konda Reddy, S/o. IVIohan Reddy, Occ Business, No.2-2-1118131611, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad

¶9

Shri A.Venkat Reddy, S/o.A.Narasaiah, Occ^{Business,Rl/o.C-20'1} ,^l\Iayur Kushal Complex, Beside Chermas, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶10

...,ET'T'ONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The Govt.of lndia repted., Registrar of Companies, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶13

Satyanarayana Power^(P) Limited, Through its Managing^{Director,No.313,} Ganapathy Apartments, Yellareddyguda,^{Navodaya Colony, Hyderabad.}

¶14

lndian Renewable Energy Development Agency^{Ltd.,Core-4A,East Court,} 1st Floor, lndia Habitat Centre Complex, Lodhi Road, New^{Delhi-110 003.} Through Shri Piyush Kumar (Asst.^{Irrlanager(Law), IREDA Ltd.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directionⁱⁿ the nature of writ, directing the Responding no.1 to^{furnish certified copy of Form} no.32 pertaining to the Petitioners dated 18-10-2001^{receivedby the Respondent} no.1 under Receipt No.296696

¶17

LA. NO: 1OF 2013(WPMP. NO:22180 OF²⁰¹³⁾

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleasedto} direct Respondent no.3 to refrain from filing or^{proceeding withprosecution of} cases of any nature whatsoever against the^{Pe|ftionerin any matter concerning} Respondent no.2^pending disposal of the above^{writ petition}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:^M/S. S.^VANI Counsel for the Respondents: SRl.^{GADI PRAVEENKUMAR, DY.SOLICITOR}

¶20

GENERAL OF INDIA

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.18186 of 2013

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard Ms.S,Vani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1.

¶25

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking prayer as follows:

¶26

"To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in the nature of writ, directing the respondent No.1 to furnish certified copy of Form No.32 pertaining to the petitioners dated 18.10.2001 received by the Respondent No.1 under receipt No.296696."

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of submission of Resignation and Form No.32, the petitioners are still being subjected to legal consequences for the acts of the said company and are facing criminal prosecutions for no fault oF them. The petitioners made several attempts to secure certified copies of Form No.32 from respondent No.1. The said Form No.32 pertaining to

the petitioner's dated 18.10.2001 was acknowledged by respondent No.1 vide receipt No.296696, and the petitioners were informed that the same is not traceable. The petitioners got issued a legal notice dated L9.09.20t2, calling upon respondent No.1 to furnish copies of Form No.32. Hence, this writ petition.

¶33

Taking into consideration the submission of learned counse! for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to furnish certified copy of Form No.32 pertaining to the petitioners dated 18.1O.2OO1 received by the Respondent No.1 under receipt No.296696 within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, in the event the same had not been furnished to the petitioners as on date. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

L-L

SD/. K. AMMAJI

ASSTSTA2I.FEGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶40

To,

¶41

The Govt.of lndia reptd.,^{Registrar of Companies, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan} Bazar. Hvderabad.

¶42

One CC io M/s. S. VANI,^Advocate IOPUCI

¶43

O"" CC to SRI.GADI^{PRAVEENKUIMAR, DY.SOLICITOR GENERALOF} INDIA Advocate [OPUC]

¶44

Two CD Copies

BM 65SB

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410812023

I
I
I
i

ORDER

--_z--i-'--
?.<br>?<br>/ L-'
S .,<br>I'u a- :- \l
T: .rra
l- .? i
eFr
,S ;
<br>4i;'t
.*.ii
tt)
a'-E/'

¶51

WP.No.18186 of 2013

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

6
n*v- - ,.t t-\zr'

Shri T.Konda Reddy, S/o. Mohan Reddy, v. The Govt.of India reptd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri T.Konda Reddy, S/o. Mohan Reddy, v. The Govt.of India reptd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Namireddy Karunakar Reddy Vs The Ministry of External Affairs

Mohammed Jahangir Vs The State Bank of India

M. Sunita Sunita Jain Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Shakeel Ahmed Vs Smt.I.Rani Kumudini, IAS

M/S. Landmark Constructions Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Poosa Rajamani, Sec-Bad. Vs M/S. State Bank of India and 2 Ors.