Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising acting Chief Justice P. Naveen Rao and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, stayed an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DBT), Hyderabad, for violating principles of natural justice. The bench was hearing a plea by Auraleafs Labs Pvt. Ltd., questioning the action of its bankers in declaring it as a non-performing asset (NPA) and claiming that the DRT order was illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. The case of the petitioner was functional and operative in March, 2020, even 24 hours before the bank declared the loan account of the petitioner as an NPA. On challenge, when the tribunal failed to consider the same, the petitioner moved the High Court. The petitioner also pleaded that while on the one hand the bank failed to follow RBI guidelines, the tribunal failed to appreciate the same. It was contended that mere recording of pleas and not analysing them is in violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the fact that there is a clear error of jurisdiction on the part of the tribunal, the order passed by it was. The matter has been adjourned to July 28 for further hearing.
Police trespass into advocate’s office
On his last date in office, the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in a bench, called for a response from the state government for a trespass into the office of an advocate. The bench of Chief Justice Bhuyan (as he then was) and Justice N. Tukaramji on Thursday treated a letter addressed to the court by practising advocate Rapolu Bhaskar as a public interest litigation (PIL). He asserted in his letter that was addressed to the Chief Justice that the station house officer and others had trespassed into his office and illegally tried to arrest his client Epur Subash Reddy without following due process and without issuing notice under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He alleged that circle inspector had gone to the house of his client and illegally obtained agreement of sale without paying any amount, due to which his client filed a complaint against the illegal activities of Banoth Kasi Ram, CI, and the SI Rana Pratap, Gudur police station, who behaved in a highhanded manner with his client. He prayed for directions to the concerned authorities to conduct a detailed enquiry against the SI and his constables and their trespass.
Considering the material available, the bench issued notice and directed authorities to file their reply. The bench will again hear the matter on August 28.
Covid delay gets HC relief
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising acting Chief Justice P Naveen Rao and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, directed the Commissioner of Income Tax not to take any coercive steps with respect to payment of tax. In a writ plea, Chandrakala Kasani sought condoning the delay in payment of part tax. Standing counsel for the department contended that the Covid-19 pandemic was the only reason provided by the petitioner for the delay in paying the tax. The department had extended the deadline several times. Further, the department also contended that they do not have the power to extend beyond the stipulated period unless it is a case of extraordinary circumstances. Adjournment has been granted to the tax department to file a detailed counter.
Recovery against CRPF officer set aside
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court set aside a recovery order against a second-in-command officer of CRPF. The concerned officer, S. Rohini Raja, questioned the legality of the recovery order, asserting that it violated principles of natural justice and that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The case revolves around an alleged misappropriation of funds in Parivar Kalyan Gas Agency (PKGA) at Avadi, Chennai, between 2006 and 2010. An inquiry was conducted to investigate the matter, which concluded that an amount in excess of ₹12 lakh had been misappropriated during the period. Subsequently, the additional director general (ADG) of the CRPF’s south zone in Hyderabad issued an order for recovery of the misappropriated amount from the concerned officers and personnel. The officer, then vice-chairman at PKGA, was directed to remit ₹60,022.40 as part of the recovery process. He contended that he had not been provided with an opportunity to defend himself, and that the order was issued without a detailed inquiry. He argued that he was being unfairly singled out, as no disciplinary action was taken against other officers involved. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the order of recovery against the officer was based on the directions given in an earlier order issued by the ADG in May 2015. The court noted that the order had been passed without the officer being provided with a copy of the respective report, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to understand the basis for the recovery of ₹60,022.40.
