Disposed

Shaik Beesara Begum v. Sri. N. Balram

Telangana HC24 Jan 2025CC/2618/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt case alleging willful violation of the order dated 19.08.2024 in WP No. 23891 of 2023 against Singareni Collieries officials. Standing Counsel submitted the order had been complied with; petitioner's counsel did not dispute and sought closure. The Court closed the contempt case with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case closed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed.

Shaik Beesara Begum Vs Sri. N. Balram — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2618 OF 2024

¶7

Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1g71 to punish the Respondents herein for their willful violation and disobedience of the order dated 19 08.2024 in WP No. 23891 of 2023.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shaik Beesara Begum, Wo. Abdul Nayeem, Aged 66 years, occ_ Household, R/o H.No. 12-1-5212, Burma Camp, Kothagudem Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri N. Balram, Chairman and Managing Director, The Singareni Collieries Co Ltd, Singareni Bhavan, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶13

Smt Kavita Naidy, General Manager (Personnel) The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd, Head Office, Kothagudem.

¶14

...Contemnors

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd.,

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶20

co NTEMPT CASE lto.2618 OF 2024

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard Siri P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel appe.aring on behalf of the petitioner and Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., appearing on beharlf of respondent Nrcs.1 and 2.

¶23

¶24

This Conl:empt Case is filed complaining violati()n of the order clatr:l 19.08.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. No.23891 of 2323.

¶25

Learned litanding Counsel for Singareni Collieries Co Ltd., appera"inrT on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 irrings to the nofice ol'this Court that the order dated 19.OB 2024 passed in !'.P. No. 23891 of 2023 had been complied with.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Coe:; not dispute the said submission maoe by learned Standirg Counsel for Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,

¶27

2 cc 26t8 2024

¶28

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and

¶29

further submits that the Contempt Case may be closed.

¶30

Bringing the said submission of learned

¶31

Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents herein on record, the Contempt Case is closed.

¶32

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous petitions, if any,^pending shall stand

¶34

closed.

¶35

sd/- N.^{c HAN D[+"t=*tHsr[tR}

¶36

//TRUE^COPY// SECTIO OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

one CC to^{Sri P. Rama SharanaSharma' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶39

1 2 one CC^{to Sri P. Sri HarshaReddy Standing Counsel for Singareni} Collieries^Co.,Ltd [oPUC]

¶40

Two CD^CoPies

DL/gh

e^ile

=___=1-:::=;

HIGH COURT

DATED:24tO112025

ORDER

CC.No.261B ot Z0Z4

S]A I€=-Qr
v
q
:lo 2['6 o
$i 'irt
-t,
,
,- D ]PL

¶51

CLOSING THE C.C,

¶52

ouh,o{

Shaik Beesara Begum v. Sri. N. Balram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Beesara Begum v. Sri. N. Balram

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

Pothnak Rajkumar Vs The State of Telangana

Paddam Bhadramma, Vs The Singareni Colonies Limited, rep. by its Chairman

M/s. Chaitanya Cement Pipe Company, Vs The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal

Md.Salawoddin Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Patlavath Shanker, Vs The Principal

Sri Sandila Ramesh Kumar Goud Vs The State of Telangana