Dismissed

Uma Packaging v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Feb 2023WP/29742/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of sale deeds by the Sub-Registrar pursuant to an NCLT order. The Court held that when a judicial forum cancels documents and no stay is granted, the Sub-Registrar is obligated to give effect to the order, making execution petitions unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking a declaration that the cancellation of sale deeds was illegal and directing the respondent to revoke the same is dismissed.

Uma Packaging Vs The State of Telangana — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^3256l

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶5

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

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶8

Between:

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 29742 OF 2022

¶10

1 Uma Packaging-. Represented by its proprietor chakiram Vivekanand s/o rate 9;.Y-, vrveKanandnagar -!y!9,^Ra9J. Clony,^agq-, lvlehdipatnam. Hvderabad.56^{years,occupatron_business.R/oB_20,} 2 Chakilam Vivekanand.'S/o tate, C.C. S^ubba Rao. age_ 56 years occupationb usiness, R/o B-20, Viveka n a n d n a ga b r o ny, rr4; fu A""L ;,'H"itf1+ir_.*i

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, represented by prjncipal Secretarv (Revenrre)

¶13

^^{yJrTgr.qngRegistrationDepartment,Secretaiiat. Hyderatiab.} 2 lhe Distrrct Registrar, Rangareddy, prashanthnagar, Moosapet

¶14

J. lhe Sub-Registrar Gandipet, Ranqareddv Districtl 4. Narsimha Vara Prasad Ahara, S/o Narsimhuru Ane ra. Aoed about 45 vears Occ- Director of Tirumala Tirupathi Constructions ltnAiai eu- fiJ'R/o'i.16. !-.93!1rM^{R. Paili,Santhi Naghr,Tirupathi(Urban),'Chift6r,} enAr,r'a Fiaarisn_

¶15

¶16

Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India ,r"t;ffT:i',fT;: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the act of Respondent No.3 in cancelling sale deeds. no.565312o14 and s6s4t2o14 dt.'tsti1t2o14 relating to Ac.5-00 Gts in Sy. No.3"l 1 and 312 of Budvel village of Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District of the Petitioners in the records of office of Sub Regisrrar Gandipet in pursuance of order dt-15-6-2022 of Honble National company Law Tribunal Hyderabad in company Petition No. 4311241lHBDl2o2o without any execution petition being filed by the Respondent No.4 under Sec.424 (3) of companies Act, without any .notice to the Petitioners and without waiting for expiry of appeal period as illegal and arbitrary and consequenfly direct the Respondent No.3 to revoke the said cancellation

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the cir r;r,rmstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to suspend the cancellirtion of sale deeds no.56531201/. and S3b4t2O14 dt..l5_.1 1- 2014 recorded by t re Respondent No.3 in office of Sub- iegistrar Gafrdipet pending disposal of t re W.P

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2o22:

¶20

Between:

¶21

Narsimha Vara Pri sad Anala, S/o Narsimhulu Anala. Aqed at,out 45 vea;s. R/o !t^{trto (-9!ll lr/ R Patti,Santhi Nagar,Tirupathi(Urbani Chitor,AnOhra} Pradesh-517502.

¶22

.....pETtTtoNE PJRES PONDENT NO.4

¶23

AND

¶24

t !lq, Packaginl l Represented by its proprietor Chakllam "/ivekanand Slo late C-C. Subba lao, age- 56 years, occupation- bu;irress;, R/o B-20, Vivekanandnagar Clony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderibad

¶25

Chakilam Vivel anand, S/o late C.C. Subba Rao, aqe- 5,) vea-s occuoation_ business, R/o E -20, Vivekanandnagar Clony, Mehdip-atnarr, Hytlerabad

¶26

...RESPOI. DENTS/PETITIONERS

¶27

The State of Te angana, represented by principal Secretar y ,Revenue),^-

¶28

.^{Stamps andRe 3istration Department,Secretaiiat,Hydera.iad.}

¶29

4 The Distrrct Re1 ristrar, Rangareddy, prashanthnagar, Moo:;apet

¶30

The Sub-Regisrrar Gandipet, Ran!areddy District.

¶31

...RESPONDENTS/TIESPONDENTS 1 TO 3

¶32

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the cir:umstances stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the Higlr court nr,ay l)e pleased to vacate its interim order dated 2Ol0Z l2O21 in 1.A.Nc.1120.22 in^'W.p. No.2974212022 and c ismiss the W.p. No.2974212022.

¶33

Counsel for the Petit oners: SRt VENUGOPALA RAO PASNO,)RU

¶34

Counsel for Responc ent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR STAMPS AND ItEGISiTRAT|ON

¶35

Counsel for Responc ent No. 4: SRI RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI

¶36

The Court made the lollowing: ORDER

¶37

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR} WRIT PETITION No.29742^{of 2022}

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the^{petitioners,learned} Assistant Government Pleader for^{Stamps and Registration} appearing for respondent Nos.l to^{3 and Sri Raja ShekarRao} Salvaji, learned counsel^{appearing for respondentNo-4.}

¶40

This writ petition is filed seeking^{a writ of mandamusto} declare the action of^{respondent No.3 incancelling the} registered sale deeds bearing Nos.5653^{and 5654 of 2O14, dated} 15.11.2014, in respect of^{landadmeasuringAcs'S.OOin Survey} Nos.311 and 312 of Budvel^{Village, RajendranagarMandal,} Ranga Reddy District,^pursuant to the^{orderpassed by the} National Company Law Tribunal^{(NCLT), Hyderabad, in} Company Petition No.43l l24t IHBD l2O2O,^{without therebeing} any execution petition filed by respondent^{No.4 under Section} 424 (31 of the Companies Act, 2013^(for short, 'the^Act'),as illegal and arbitrary.

¶41

This Court, at the time of admission on 2O.O7.2O22, passed an interim order under a mistaken impression that a copy of the order dated 15.O6.2022^passed by the^{NCLT was not}

¶42

¶43

furnish ld to the petitioners and thus directe,i resoondent No.3 not to cntcrtain any transaction in respe:t ol the subject documr nts bearing Nos.5653 and 5654 <.tf 2O1a.

¶44

R:spondent No.4 filed counter affidavi: ak)ng with the vacate I e tition.

¶45

P: om a perusal of the material on recorc, it is noticed that the NCIT, Hyderabad, passed an order in th: above Company Petition on 15.06.2022 holding that it is a c.tear case of mrsman lgement and thereby in exercise rtl. power under Sections 241 and 242 of the Act, set aside thr l:wo transactions and carcelled the two sale deeds bearing do:ument Nos.5653 and 5651of2Ot4, dated 15. 11.2014. A copy cf the said order is also fik d along with this writ petition by the petitioners. Aggrieve 1 by the said order, dated L5.06.2022, the petitioners have alr:ady availed a remedy of appeal before the NCLT, even before fi ling the writ petition and the said a ppeal is pending consider rtion before the appellate Tribunal. Ar; on <late, no stay order is granted by the NCLAT on the operar ion of the order, dated 11i.06.2O22, passed by the NCLT, Hyc erabad, and the same is still in operation. Respondent No.3. having come to know a rout the order passed by the NOLT, Hyderabad,

¶46

I (

¶47

cancclled^{the above referredtwo salc deeds and made necessary} en[ries in^{EncumbranceCertificate to that effect' thereby} implemented^{the order passed by the NCLT' Hyderabad'}

¶48

It is the contention^{of learned counselfor the petitioners} that unless^{and untilan executionpetitionis filedunderSection} 424 (3lof^{the Act r/w. Rules 56 and57 of the Rulesmade under} the Act,^{and the petitionersare put on notice andan} opportunity^{of raisingobjectionsis afforded' respondentNo'3} straight away^{cannot implement the order passedby the NCLT'} Hyderabad,^{and cancel the registeredsale deeds behindthe} back of^t1.e Petitioners'

¶49

7 . This Court,^{having consideredthe submissions made by} learned counsel^{for the petitioners, is of the consideredview} thataSandwhenanydocumentiscancelledbyajudicialforum and such^{an information is furnished to the respondent - Sub} Registrar,^{the Sub Registraris under obligation to give effect to} the same,^{unless the operation of the sardorder is stayed or set} aside by^{the appellate Court' Therefore'this Court does not find} any error^{or irregula'rityin the action of the respondent No'3in} cancelling^{the abovereferred two sale deeds and making}

¶50

necessary en.ries in that regard in thc encumbr: rrce of t he propcrty in qt cstior-r.

¶51

Admitte dly, there is no stay granted by the NC LAT against the order, d ated 15.06.2022, till date. Hence , when an authority, wh .ch is under obligation to give elfect t I the orde.rs passed by the NCLT is inclined to give effect withour there being any execution petition, lhere is no necessit]r to initiate exccution proceedings. '.hereforc, the contention of the learner. r:ounsel for the petitioner ; in this regard is wholly unsustaina:lr: and this Oourt does nc t find any merit in this writ petition.

¶52

Accordi rgly, this u.rit petition is dismissed lee rnng it open to the petitior lers to pursue their remedies otherw se available under Iaw, in:luding the appeal filed before the NC LAT against the order, da ed 15.06.2022, passed by the NCLT, Hyderabad. There shall br no order as to costs.

¶53

Miscelle neous petitions, if any, pending i r this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶54

IiO/-R.KARTHIKEYAN ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// !_11) :SECTION OFFICER

¶55

To, 1. One CC to S i_Venug_opala Rao Pasnooru Advocate [OtrL,C] 2. Two CCs to^, iPfor Stamps And Registration, High ior rt fo'r ttre State of Telanoana. f )url 3. one Ct to S 'i Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji, Advocate(OpU i;) 4. Two CD Cop ES MBC .

BS d/^._-

-l ;

CC TODAY

IIIG]H COURT

DATEI) i 0710212023

1t\ ;'lTAf6
+
)
o
,_) I r, it? N8

".. /a
-x r ",tt '.'.<,-)"
- a,a a,.. .. ,-

¶63

ORDER

¶64

WP No.i!r]742 ot 2022

¶65

DISMISSING THE V'FIIT PETITION

¶66

..>-
I
('t
'0\ i)

¶67

WII hlOUT COSTS

Uma Packaging v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Packaging v. The State of Telangana

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

Manthena Udaya Bhaskar Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Kumaraswamy Kolla and 5 others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

N. Nishanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Bondla Nagamani And 2 Others Vs State of Telangana And 3 Others

Koshika Srisailam Vs The State of Telangana and 14 others

Sriramula Nagaaraju Vs The State of Telangana