The High Court closed a contempt petition filed for alleged violation of orders dated 13.03.2024. The Court found no deliberate violation based on averments regarding the timing of recovery actions and notice issuance.
Contempt case closed with liberty to petitioner to pursue remedies; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
132521
IN THE HIGHCOURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETHDAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLEMRSJUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA
GONTEMPT CASENO: 691oF 2024
Petition undersections 10 to 12 of contemptof courts Act '1971praying that in thecircumstancessiaieoin t,e affidavit file herein the High courtmay be pleased topunish tf,"ii"tp""O"nisherein. Jor their wilful and deliberate disobedienceot tne oroers o-aiLa li.$.zozq in tA No.1 0f 2024 in WP No.67100f 2024.
Between:
M/s. Dr.Reddy'sLaboratoriesLimited' Office at 6-3-8653rd Floor'My Home Juoallv. Ameerpet,nlit]i"6'"a n"Ji'il"ll"{bv its Assiiant General^Counsel' 3;i6"'d;il K'i;'h;;e!.rjJiJrrlsl"'"G R'K Ransa Rao' Aged about34 vears' R/ o. Hyderabad'
...ContemPtPetitioner
...Contemnors/ResPondents
: Sri M.Pranav Counsel forthe Petitioner
: Sri T.SasiKumar Counsel forthe ResPondentNo'1 : Sri KB.RamannaDora Counselfor the ResPondent No'4 The Courtmade the following : ORDER
,,i
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA o EM c N 91 2 4
o RDER:
The petitioner approached the Court complaining violation of the orders of this Court dated 13.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2O24 in W.p.No.67t0 of 2024.
" 1 1. .ff is submitted that in view of the above, especially after receiving the email dated 13.03.2024 at 3.20 pm along with a letter from petitioner,s Advocate the respondent No.4 cannot say that, as there was no stay/injunction in the matter the respondent has paid the amount by way of Banker Cheque bearing No.038905 for Rs.3,75,92,574/_ dated 13.03.2024. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 having recejved information regarding the orders dated 13.03.2024 in LA.No.1 of 2024 in W.p.No.6710 of 2024 both by ernait and personally through petitioner,s representative Sandeep Makthal physicalty present at the bank, ought to have stopped payment to the respondentNo.j and ought to have informed the bank branch from which the DD NO.038905 was sought to be encashed.,,
r_
2
3 The coun ra ffidavit and additional counter
v hav fir n e f res on No.1 hN 6 nd he un ffi avit
extract here ri n under:
"6. I submit thatthe respondentfiled the counter duly submittingactual facts and chronology of actions that tookplaceduring recovery proceedingsin the matter. Inthis regard it is once again humbly submitted that therecovery action underBF had been initiated ontY after laPse of the Appeal period of 60days of issue order dated 10.01.2024 andbeforefiting and before outcome of interim order ofthe Honorable High Court in W.P.No.6710/2024.Therefore,theContemptand disobedience ofthe order of Honorable High Courtdoes not arise. Thus,the grounds on which the petitionhas been filed isbaseless and non-maintainable'
J
T I
L
(7
Officer of Respondent's Office, who was on field duty, visited the ban and collected the DD on 13.03.2024 before lunch hours and handed over in Office (Annexure-C) and the same was deposited in respondent's Accounts before 2.75 p.m. on 13.03.2024 (An nexu re-D).
In this regard, it is further submitted that as per interim directions of Hon,bte High Court vide ()rder dated 1 1.03. 2024 bearing No.TS/7TC/ENF/Z-21/ I 7835, 20705/BF Order/2023-24 issued by the respondent No.1 (which was already served on Respondent No.4) and fufther directions were issued individuatty to Respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.p.No.6710/2024 were further directed not to release an amount of Rs.4,52,16,697/- in any form the accounts ot the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 10.01.2024 read with Prohibitory Order dated 11.03.2024 bearing No.TS/PTC/ENF/Z-21/17832, 17835, 2070S/BF Order/2023-24, issued by the respondent No.1 to the respondents 6 and 7 for a period of three(3) weeks from that day."
4
there is no deliberate violation of the orders of this Court dated L3.O3.2O24 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2OZ4 in W.P.No.671O of 2024 and accordingly, the contempt case is closed giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedies as are available under law. However. there shatt be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Contemot Case, shall stand closed.
tl
//TRUE COPY//
SD/-M.RAMANA KRISHNA DEPU REGISTRAR
To,
'1 . One CC to Sri [M.pranav, Advocate tOpUC] 2. One CC to Sri T.Sasi Kumar, Advocite tOpiJCI 3. One CC to Sri KB.Ramanna Dora, Advocate J-jeUC1 4. Two CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesCD CopiesCopies
SECTION OFFICER
svs Fd-
rx:'-
HIGH COURT
DATED:2010912024
-ffi;.---1
o
U ti I
T 7it r/ I
t
;.' /t
,,/
ORDER
CC.No.691 ot 2024
CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE
G,eP(4 #'.t
M/s. Dr.Reddy's Laboratories Limited
R.Sridevi
Vishal Aqarwal
C. Prasshanth
MVSN Reddy
Surepalli Nanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
