Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Thursday directed the State Housing Board and Ramky Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to execute sale deeds in favour of the petitioners who bought flats in Ramky Towers at Gachibowli of the city.
Justice S.V. Bhatt was dealing with a petition filed by one Gayatri Shaker and 150 others, seeking to declare as discriminatory and illegal the failure of the Housing Board to execute sale deeds in their favour in spite of the receipt of total sale consideration.
Counsel for the petitioners told the court that the erstwhile AP Housing Board and Ramky Infra Ltd had taken up the Ramky Towers Project as a joint venture. He submitted that the Board stopped the registration of flats in favour of the buyers on the ground that Ramky Infra failed construct houses for the poor as per the agreement.
He brought to the notice of the court that despite the recommendation of a Cabinet subcommittee for extension of the agreement, neither the Board nor the Ramky Infra took steps to resolve the dispute.
Counsels appearing for the Ramky submitted that their client was prepared to take up construction of houses for the poor.
Counsel for the Board said if the Ramky was prepared to construct houses for poor, the Board will withdraw its instructions on stopping of registrations.
The judge ordered resolution of the dispute within two weeks and after four weeks, the Board shall execute sale deeds in favour of the buyers.
Mahesh Babu stay extended
The Hyderabad High Court on Thursday extended stay for one month on the summons issued by a lower court directing actor Mahesh Babu and director Kortala Shiva to appear before it.
Justice A. Shankar Narayana was dealing with petitions moved by Mahesh Babu and Kortala Shiva challenging the summons issued by a lower court in a case by R.D. Wilson complaining the Mahesh Babu Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. made the film Srimanthudu based on his novel published in a vernacular weekly violating copyright.
When the petitions of Mahesh Babu and Kortala Shiva came up for hearing on Thursday , the judge enquired with counsel for the petitioners that the notice to the complainant has been served or not. The counsel replied they were yet to serve the notice to the complainant. The case was posted to March 27.
