Disposed

Sri Maddineni Ramesh Babu v. Sri K. Surendra Mohan Garu

Telangana HC7 Nov 2025CC/1715/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitionert initiated a contempt case alleging willful disobedience of a court order directing the respondents to conduct a General Body Meeting with genuine members. The court found disputed facts as to whether valid members attended the meeting on 04.08.2024, held adjudication of eligibility belongs to the main writ petition, closed the contempt case, and disposed of pending miscellaneous pe

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

Sri Maddineni Ramesh Babu Vs Sri K. Surendra Mohan… — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰² I

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶7

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1715 OF 2025

¶8

Contempt Case under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the Respondents herein for their willfully deliberate, disobedience and intentional violation of the orders of this Court dated 02.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.20925 of 2024.

¶9

Between

¶10

sri Maddineni Ramesh Babu, s/o sri M.Kotaiah, Aged about s4 years, occupation Film Director, Membership No.4670, R/o Flat No.H6-104, ulc thitrapuri..Hills,^{Mani Konda, Hyderabad-500104.Also at HIG-3-202, Chitrapuri} Hills, Manikonda(Jagir) Gandipet Mandal, R.R. Dist-500104.

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Sri K. Surendra Mohan Garu, The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies State of Telangana, Gruhakalpa Buildings, Hyderabad

¶14

¶15

1. Sri C. Sudhakar Garu, The District Co-Operative Officer/ Deputy Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, 52 2nd floor,^IDOC, Kongara Kalan, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

Ih" Telug_u. _cine workers co-operative Housing society, Rep. by its Secretary Sri Paravada Satyanarayana Dora S/o. Pirsu Ramtilu, aged dbout Q6.year9,^{occ Movie Artist, TBC-608, chitrapuri Head ffice, Chitrapuri} Colony, Hyderabad-sOO1 04.

¶17

Vallabaneni Anil Kumar, S/o. Nageswar Rao, President Telugu Cine Workers Co-Operative Housing Society, TBC-608, Chitrapuri Head Office, Chitrapuri Colony, Hyderabad-s00 1 04. ...Respondents

¶18

Gounsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Durga Bhavani Kondasani

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Cooperation

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶23

CASE No.1715 of 2025

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Thi,s contempt case is filed against^{the action of the} respondt:nts in willful violation of the^{order passed in} W.P.No.!1,O925 of 2024, dated O2.O8.2O24^{wherein this} Court hers directed the respondent Nos.1 and^{3 to conduct} the proposed General Body Meeting of the respondent^No.4 Society on O4.O8.2O24 or any other subsequent dates^as per the direction of this Court in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in W.P.No. t"5677 of 2024 dated 30.O7.2024 after due verification of the list of valid and genuine mernbers of the respond,:nt No.4-Society.

¶26

The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the order p;assed by this Court, the respondents have not conduct,ed General Body Meeting without valid and genuine members of the respondent No.4-Society

i )

I ]

Learned Government preader for cooperation basing on the counters filed by the respondent Nos.l and 2 submits that by following the order of this court, they have appointed officers for conducting the General Body Meeting and after veri$ring the identity of the members have conducted the said meeting, thereby, the cause d.oes not survive for further adjudication and no further orders are required to be passed in this contempt case.

¶32

In view of the submissions made by both sides, there are disputed question of facts with regard to conducting of General Body Meeting of the respondent No.4-society with genuine members or not and this court cannot decide who have attended the meeting which was already cond.ucted by the authorities on 04.08 .2024 and if the petitioner has any grievance witl. regard to eligibility of members, it can be decided in the main writ petition but not in the contempt

I^case \

I I

In view of the above circumstances, the cause in the

¶38

conternpt case does not survive.

¶39

Accordingly, this contempt case is closed. There

¶40

shall l>e no order as to costs.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶42

closed

¶43

,,}

¶44

SD/. N.SRIHARI UTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'/

N OFFICER

To,

One CC; to Sri. Durga Bhavani Kondasani, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CC;s to GP for Cooperation, High Court for the State of Telangana. lourl

¶50

Two C[t Copies

DL/PSL

HIGH COIURT

DATED i0711112025

ORDER

t
(
.)'
C(J 0 g FtB 2U6
,h
* .:{
I

¶57

CC.No.17'15 of 2025

¶58

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE

Sri Maddineni Ramesh Babu v. Sri K. Surendra Mohan Garu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Maddineni Ramesh Babu v. Sri K. Surendra Mohan Garu

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

Emmadi Krishnaiah Vs The Government of Telangana

Nazarene Grammar School, Vs The Commissioner and Inspector General

Khetavath Srinu Nayak Vs The State of Telangana

Hariharan Kalyanakrishnan Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Banavath Shanthi Vs State of Telangana and 4 Others

James Francis Cruz @ F James Cruz Vs The State of Telangana