Dismissed

M/S. Celebrity Hospitality, Hyd and 2 Others v. the Second Appellate, Hyderabad and 2 Othrs

Telangana HC1 Mar 2023WP/2750/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 read with Section 151 CPC by Cerebrivity Hospital. The Court observed that the subject matter had become infructuous and dismissed the petition accordingly without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous. Miscellaneous applications closed. No order as to costs.

M/S. Celebrity Hospitality, Hyd and 2 Others Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ I

¶2

I l l l

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITIONNO :275O oF 2007

¶8

Between:

¶9

I vv" I

¶10

1 ' tt//s' cerebritv Hosoitarity .Services, 5th F r oor, prajay corporation House, Chikoti Gardehs, Begumfet, Hyd;;;Hd.'

¶11

' I3:,y:ll3H,['"*5:3fl,'i#3",::i".:ttJlff5l1:,lli,,J1?$:a,,n^{F,oor, prajay}

¶12

' Begumpet, $:ffi ri il1[f Hyderabad.'Bi,^l?,Il,B?ti,g %: iil#,ffi : JS"? ?i,Hi ff]Slty

¶13

ANO

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

1 The second Apoerate Authority. under the A.p. Shops & Estabrishment Act 1 e88 and The Deputy commis6ionwe; ;i t;'6;t;i;ir" cities, Hydera bad.

¶16

2 The Authority Under Section 48 of Ap Shops & Establishment Act & the Ai.i.B*:"#:I::,fi ;:!:#,j!.HG;;6;-_I;ff iil;x;;;;rlJririZ,,n,

¶17

3 S;fro."1?t3il, s/o.K.David Netson, Ft/o. Ftat No. 50, West Maredpafly,

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

. petition Under Article 226- of the constitution.of rndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affiJaviiJir"i,.iiJii,i,n, the High court may be cu ra..r v o,i",,i i#', fl^,r:'iit& "ffi^;l ;;H;^ll;P[ s#.,nT: tri "^iil, respondent in reiectino ro Spi,:li)!! ::,?il"":,r;:gui..^{in p,.us"nii;} ;;"fi, li:;::[x,fftl"n,,r.e-,::l[1?::i[f:i:lT|l;jt%#:i?+"?,,,y",ffi

¶20

¶21

I.A.NO:1 OF 200 7(WPMP. NO: 352I OF 2007)

¶22

Petition Under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order in sAMp No. 1/2007 0n the file of ihe 1 st Respondent pending disposal of writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI.G.RAVI MOHAN

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Gp FOR LABOUR

¶25

Counset for the Respondent No.3 : M/s.pADMAJA SRIRAM

¶26

The Court made the following ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE A.} ABHISHEKREDDY

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.2750 of 2007

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the subject

¶31

matter has become infructuous.

¶32

Recording the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed^as

¶33

infructuous.

¶34

Miscellaneous applications, if-any^{pending,shall stand}

¶35

closed. There shall be no order as to^costs.

¶36

SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR //TRUE COPYII AssrsrAr.raEcrsrRAR /

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

¶39

1 Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI 2 One CC to SRI.G.RAVI MOHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to M/s.PADMAJA SRIRAM, Advocate TOPUCI 4 Two CD Copies S.A GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10312023

ORDER

WP.No.2750 of 2007

g STr\ i'.c
q
t{
[t uit Ntl
il)
. .-):_.":

¶45

DISMISSING THE W.P

¶46

AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS.

¶47

o'l

M/S. Celebrity Hospitality, Hyd and 2 Others v. the Second Appellate, Hyderabad and 2 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Celebrity Hospitality, Hyd and 2 Others v. the Second Appellate, Hyderabad and 2 Othrs

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

S.Shanker Goud Vs The Apsrtc,rep.by its Managing Director

Smt. Apuri Sharda Vs Sri. Chanda Jagadeeshwar

The Franciscan Sisters of Mary Rosary Convent, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. George, Vs the Reg. Manager, Apsrtc, Nalgonda and Another

Nizam-Uz-Zafar Khan Vs the Union of India and 2 Others

M.Padmamma, Vs The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal