Dismissed

V.Krishna Mohan. Hyderabad v. the Cheif Executive Officer., Vasavi Coop.Urban Bank Ltd.Hyd

Telangana HC18 Apr 2023WP/8438/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, hearing a writ petition under Article 226 and an incidental application under Section 151 CPC, dismissed the writ petition as infructuous on counsel's submission that the subject-matter had become infructuous. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous without costs.

V.Krishna Mohan. Hyderabad Vs the Cheif… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^3167I

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRl JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK^REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8438 OF 2003

¶7

Between:

¶8

V.Krishna Mohan, S/o Sri. V.Venugopal, R:/o^{Plot.No.756, Prashanthnagar,} Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Vasavi Coop. Urban Bank Ltd. Malakpet,^{Hyderabad, Rep by its Cheif} Executive Officer.

¶12

Registrar of Co-operative Societies,^{Govt.of A.P., Hyderabad.}

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue an Order, Direction or a Writ more^{particularlyin} the^natureof "WRIT OF CERTIORARI" and after calling for the records from the^1st Respondent in VCUB/2003/195 dt.19.4.2003 and^{quash the same.}

¶15

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2003(WPMP. NO: 10908 OF²⁰⁰³⁾

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend all further^proceedings in^{pursuance of the Orders in VCUB/2003/195dt} 19.4.2003 issued by the 1't Respondent^{herein, pending disposalof the above} W,P

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.RAVINDRANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI S.ASHOK^{ANAND KUMAR} Counsel for the Respondent No.2: - The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THI TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHE]( REDDY

¶19

WRIT PETITION No .8438 of 2OOl ]

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

\'ltt i thc matter is taken up for hearirg, the learned c oLnrsi'l iip )( trrtrg on bchalf of the petitioner has st aLed that the subjcc. r'n;r rcr ol'Lhc u,rit petition has beconre infrr:,:tucus.

¶22

.l) :ilr or I,ne thr: above submission mztde by thr: learnecl c,lllns( l, rlt, \r,'rrr petrtion is dismissed as infr-uctu, r r-rs.

¶23

l'lr r rsccllzrncous petitions pending, if an.r, shrll stzrnrl

¶24

cl:rst rl.^'l l,r c shall bc ;ro order as to costs.

¶25

¶26

//TRUE COPY//

¶27

SD/.N. SRIHARI ASSrS r4t[ REGTSTRAR qu) SECTION OFFICER

¶28

One CC lo llti S RAVI NDRANATH, Advocate tOpUCl 2. One^(lC to llR S ASHOK ANAND KU|VAR, nOirocate'1O"r tcl 3. Two CD Cor i ;

PSK GJP

HIGH COUF:T

DATED:181( 412023

ORDER

WP.No.8438 of 2003

--a' iArs
'-)r
/1
1 [ J'iil ?t123
/
.:-'

¶35

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCI UOUS WITHOUT COSTS.

¶36

T
o2loef t z
. \i-
n1 Kf,.t"
5i.l ':..' )\

V.Krishna Mohan. Hyderabad v. the Cheif Executive Officer., Vasavi Coop.Urban Bank Ltd.Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Krishna Mohan. Hyderabad v. the Cheif Executive Officer., Vasavi Coop.Urban Bank Ltd.Hyd

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

P.Srinivas, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Govindu Prameela Vs M.Suguna

M.Bal Raj, Hanumakonda,Jangaon,Warangal District Vs Apsrtc., v.C.and M.D., Musheerabad,Hyderabad and 2 Others

The Karimnagar Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., Vs v.Srinivas Reddy

Smt. Nafasath Ameena, W/o. Syed Siraj Hyder, Vs The Government of A.P.

V.Kista Reddy, Mahaboobnagar District. Vs Apsrtc, by Vc and Md., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 2 Others