REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

M. Srinivasa Rao Appellant

V/S

Tangirala Ramana Reddy Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SUKHDEV SINGH SODHI V. HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE S. TEJA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
EBRAHIM MAMOOJEE PAREKH V. KING-EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
C K DAPHTARY VS. O P GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
S SUNDARAM PILLAI KOUSALAYA DEVT MURUGESA MUDALIAR N S DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL THAHIRA BEEVI M BALAKRISHNAN K R KRISHNAN VS. V R PATTABIRAMAN:P LAKSHMINARAYANA CHARYA:SELVARAJ CHETTIAR:B S RAMACHARI:R A MUTHIAH NADAR:FATHIMA BAI:P BHANUMATT [REFERRED TO]
V G NIGAM VS. KEDAR NATH GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
NIAZ MOHAMMAD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
CHORDIA AUTOMOBILES VS. S MOOSA [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTU RAM VS. URVASHI GULATI [REFERRED TO]
ANIL RATAN SARKAR VS. HIRAK GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK PAPER KAMGAR UNION VS. DHARAM GODHA [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF BARODA VS. SADRUDDIN HASAN DAYA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MD ILLIYAS [REFERRED TO]
SAHDEO ALIAS SAHDEO SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
MUTHU KARUPPAN VS. PARITHI ILAMVAZHUTHI [REFERRED TO]
UNIWORTH TEXTILES LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD VS. TUNCAY ALANKUS [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN VS. TARUN BAJAJ [REFERRED TO]
R S SEHRAWAT VS. RAJEEV MALHOTRA & ORS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As these two contempt appeals arise out of a common order, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

(2.) Heard Sri P. Subhash, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, in both the appeals.

(3.) The 1st respondent was a permanent fair price shop dealer of Shop No.35 of Perurupadu Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Guntur District. His authorization was suspended by the appellant, in C.A.No.30 of 2015, by proceedings, dtd. 1/10/2014, on certain allegations. Aggrieved by the said order of suspension, the 1st respondent approached the erstwhile High Court of A.P. by way of W.P.No.37203 of 2014. The appellant, in C.A.No.30 of 2015, appeared before the erstwhile High Court and admitted his mistake in issuing such proceedings. Thereupon, the writ petition was allowed by order dtd. 15/12/2014, setting aside the proceedings leaving it open to the appellant in C.A.No.30 of 2015 to hold a detailed enquiry and to pass an order.

Click here to view full judgment.

M. SRINIVASA RAO Vs. TANGIRALA RAMANA REDDY

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address