Dismissed

Sri Guruprabha Power Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jan 2025CRLA/233/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal along with a petition to condone the delay in filing. The condonation petition was dismissed because notice to one respondent could not be served. Consequently, the criminal appeal was also dismissed. The Registry was directed to number pending miscellaneous appeal applications.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 5 Limitation Act dismissed; Criminal Appeal dismissed; Registry directed to number pending miscellaneous applications.

Sri Guruprabha Power Ltd. Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^3251]

¶2

IN THE^{HIGH COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA}

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY,^{THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY} "--rwo iHousAND AND TWENTY FlvE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶7

t.A.NO .1^{of 2O25}

¶8

ln/and

¶9

CRIMINAL^{APPEALNO:233 oF 2025}

¶10

Appeal^{filedunderSection372(4) of Cr'P C aoainstthe order dated} 20.02.2018^{passed in c c il:i;'} "t^{idr'o on the file oi the courtof the XXIV} Special Magistrate,^HYderabad

¶11

Between:

¶12

Bv its Accountant^{Sri.Vempati Gopalkrishna} Sri GuruPrabha^{Power Ltd, ReP} r.rolz-r f a+,^{Flat No-203,SaptasaiResidency'} S/o.V.Durga^{NageswaraRao,H'} L.B.Nagar,^HYderabad ...APPELLANT

¶13

...APPELLANT

¶14

AND

¶15

't. The State of Telangana, Reptd^{by The Public Prosecutor'HighCourt} Buildings,^HYderabad'

¶16

Buildings,^HYderabad' Fertilizers^{Pvt Ltd} '^{Rep By its Authorised Signatory}

¶17

2 il;;.H.rift"r'ngro "no Nazim^{Ashiraff rrnit,'"*"ialoffice at 335' Shalimar House' Grant Road'} Mumbai^{- 400007}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

lA NO: I^oF2025 '

¶20

Petition^{under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in"the circumstances} stated^{in the affidavit tir.i'ii} "rpp.rt^{of the. petiiion, the High courtmay be} oleased to^{condone tne oeray?5-daysin fiiing.the preseni Criminal Appeal} aoainst the order o^t^{azo.'dilzitap'IJ"o i" c i.Nro iez ol 2016on the file of} th:" i];ii;,ai'^{gf ecia r Masistrate'scourt, Hvderabad}

¶21

Counsel for^{the Appellant:SRI V' B' SUBRAHMANYAM}

¶22

Counsel for^{the Respondent} ,...^No'1: "^{_SRI M' VIVEKANANDAREDDY} ESSISTNNT^{PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶23

The Court^{delivered the following:COMMON JUDGMENT}

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER

¶26

I.A.No.1 OF 2o25 IN AND c APPEAL NO.233 oF 20.25

¶27

COMMON .ruD_QnrENT:

¶28

This Court, by order, dated 04.O1.2019, in I.A.No. 1 of 2018, directed the appenant to take out personar no[ice to the respondenl No.2-accused by registered post acknowledgment due and file proof c,f service. On 25.01.2019, a memo has been filed on the ground that the letter was not delivered, since A,ld;:essee Left without inslrucr.ions". The same will not amount tc service of nodce.

¶29

In the sai<l circumstances, I.A.No.1 of 201g is dismissed on the ground of non-service of notice on the respondr:nt No.1,)_accused. consequenty, the crimina.l Appeal is also dismissed. In view of the judgment reportr:d in Sgam Dondiga a. State of And.hra .prad.esht, the Registry is directed to number the appeal Misc elianeous

¶30

applications pen<ling, if any, sha_ll stand dismissed.

¶31

Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI / \ JOINT REGISTRAR /

¶32

//TRUE COPYII i\l lr " sECTtoN oFFtcER

¶33

¶34

To,

¶35

1 Ih.^{XXIV S;peciat Magistrate,Hyderabad.}

¶36

Two CCs to the [)ublic prosecutor, State of Tel angana, High C;ou rt Buildings

¶37

at HyderabaC[OLtT]

¶38

One CC to S;ri V. B. Subrahmanyam, Advocate loPUCl 4. Two CD CoF,ies Plp/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:08 t01t2OZs

COMMON JUDGMENT |.A.NO.1 0F 2025 IN

¶45

f 1E( 4, v
C:)
' .d.,
s
S.
rss
ss
i.
,i ..
:!:*

¶46

CRLA.No.2'33 of 2O2S

¶47

DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND |.A.NO.1 ()F 2025

¶48

aoq(+ N*W

Sri Guruprabha Power Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Guruprabha Power Ltd. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Ap., Vs Balerao Madhav and Other

Vaggari Pushpa Vs Lebaki Venu

Adimulapu Vikram, Karimnagar and 2 Othrs Vs P.P., Hyd

K.Papaiah Vs the State of A.P.

Ekkerla Pedda Raju, (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanvantha Reddy Akhila Vs The State of Telangana