Friday, December 1, 2023
Home » Nation » Crime » September 16, 2023

Registry cannot decide maintainability of writ: Telangana HC


Published on: September 16, 2023 | Updated on: September 16, 2023

 A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Thursday overruled objections of the registry on the maintainability of a writ plea. A writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). (DC Image)

HYDERABAD: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Thursday overruled objections of the registry on the maintainability of a writ plea. A writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aaradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar, heard the petition filed by P. Ankama Rao and others, complaining that NCLT had refused to exclude properties from sale in winding up of a company, which is being dealt with by the tribunal.

The petitioner contended that Punjab National Bank was a party to the negotiations with the petitioners and after receipt of part amounts towards debt, it proceeded to file a petition before NCLT, which appointed a resolution professional who refused to exclude properties from the ongoing IRP proceedings though payments had been made.

The NCLT refused to correct the stance of the resolution professional leading to the present writ petition questioning the judicial order of the NCLT. The bench said the registry cannot decide the question of maintainability and directed that the writ petition may be numbered. The bench made it clear that the question of whether the writ petition is to be heard or not is for the court to decide and cannot be decided while the case is being registered.


HC suspends sentence against SI

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N. V. Shravan Kumar, stayed the order of a single judge imprisoning the SHO of Kattangur police station for three months.

A contempt appeal was preferred by Dachepally Vijay Kumar seeking to set aside an order contending that the order of the single judge to not interfere was not willfully disobeyed.

The petitioner contended that it was his bonafide view that there was a dispute regarding the identification of land and sent a communication to the concerned MRO to carry out a survey of the land.

He also contended that by way of an affidavit, it has tendered an unconditional apology and paid the requisite fine during the course of the day. The panel directed that the three-month imprisonment shall be stayed till the next date of hearing and also dispensed personal appearance of the SHO.

Earlier a single judge of the High Court had sentenced the appellant to three months imprisonment in a contempt case where it was alleged that the contemnor had violated the orders of the court by threatening a party before the court on issues relating to the case pending before the High Court. It was specifically alleged that the contemnor had threatened the private party. The court heard the transcriptions of the conversation before suspending the sentence.


RTV gets interim order from HC

Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court urged the central government to consider the application of RTV News channel/Prime 9 News for a change of name and logo to 'RXM TV' and communicate the same within a week. The judge was hearing an interim application in a writ petition filed by Rayudu Vision Media seeking to permit the petitioner to use the RTV logo or the alternative RXM TV logo with immediate effect.

The petitioner stated that a commercial suit was filed at the Bombay High Court wherein the petitioner herein is the defendant and the Bombay HC observed that "This Court has compared the two device marks as a whole, which are depicted hereinabove, and it is found that applying the tests evolved through various judgments of courts, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has made out a strong prima facie case in its favour to hold that the impugned device mark of the defendant is deceptively similar to the registered device mark of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case in its favour, no enquiry is warranted on the aspects of the balance of convenience and the grave and irreparable loss that the plaintiff might suffer in the absence of interim reliefs."

It was further submitted by senior counsel P. Raghuram, appearing for the petitioner, that an application is being made to the respondents by paying the requisite fee and duly referring to the final order of the Bombay HC to "consider the same and permit the petitioner to use RTV logo or in the alternative RXM TV logo immediately".

Gadi Praveen Kumar, deputy solicitor general, contended that the petitioner's request had already been rejected vide proceedings issued on August 11 and the prayer in the present interim application cannot be granted.

The judge, considering the submissions and after perusing the records, directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the law as mandated under Guideline 20 Clause (3) of the policy guidelines for up-linking and downlinking of television channels Part VIII change of name and logo/satellite/teleport/operational status. The judge posted the matter to October 4.


HC sets aside charge memo against CI

Justice P. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court set aside a charge memo against police inspector M. Gangadhar, presently with CCS. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by him challenging the charge memo alleging that the petitioner had resorted to excessive use of law by influencing the investigating officer in adding Sections 307 and 434 of IPC and thereafter arrested one Y. Bhaskar Rao, manager of One and Cadol Projects in haste and did not conduct a proper investigation. 

It was contended by the petitioner that the title of land measuring 33 acres in Sy. No.885 (old), Sy. No.696 (new) in Janwada village of Shankarpally Mandal under Narsingi P.S. is disputed and possession had been allegedly traversed to many claimants. Viswanadha Raju, the complainant, stated that Ravinder Reddy, Bhaskar Rao, and his henchmen have been threatening him and trying to trespass on his land since 2018.

They eventually criminally trespassed into his land on February 20, 2021,  and forcibly demolished the room took away his agriculture tools, and threatened him with dire consequences if he failed to vacate the land.  It is also submitted that the complainant had earlier filed three complaints in Narsingi P.S., and two complaints were before the petitioner, who had taken charge as the SHO.

It is further submitted by the petitioner that the investigation officer of the case, R. Laxman, sector SI, discussed with all the concerned officers and on their instructions, met the legal adviser, C.P. office, and on his advice, he decided to add Sections 307 and 434 of IPC to the case with the concurrences of the ACP, DCP and the commissioner. He argued that after seven and a half months and that too after the transfer of the then commissioner of police, Cyberabad, and at no point of time had the ACP or DCP issued any memo to the petitioner calling for any explanation on any lapses.

It is submitted that the petitioner has not conducted any grave injustice to the petitioner, did not indulge in any misconduct nor had brought any influence or pressure on the investigation officer to add the sections mentioned supra. The counsel for the petitioner also contended that allegations in the charge memo are vague and did have any details and therefore, any inquiry with such vague allegations would cause benefits.

On the other hand, the state contended that a joint charge memo was issued to the petitioner as well as the SI, who conducted the investigation and the petitioner has submitted his explanation. He submitted that from the said reply, it is very clear that the petitioner has understood the charges against him and therefore, it cannot be said that the charge memo is vague and unclear.

The judge considering the rival contentions and after perusing the records observed that "the charge memo dated 25.04.2022 are vague and thereby putting the petitioner at a disadvantage to counter the same with any contentions to the contrary. Accordingly, the judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the charge memo as the same was in "violation of principles of natural justice and hence unsustainable".