Hyderabad: A two-judge vacation panel comprising Justice J. Anil Kumar and Laxmi Narayana Alishetty of the Telangana High Court directed the TGSRTC to de-seal the Jeevan Reddy Mall and multiplex at Arramudu bus depot in Nizamabad. The bench was dealing with a writ appeal and a writ petition filed by Vishnujet Infra Pvt. Ltd. represented by Rajitha Reddy, wife of BRS former MLA A. Jeevan Reddy. In a writ petition on March 27, the High Court had directed the petitioner to pay arrears of over Rs 2.57 crore to the RTC for the mall with a built-up area of Rs 3.2 lakh sq. ft within a month. The land was leased on the build-operate-transfermodel. It was the case of the RTC that there was a default in the payment of over Rs 2 crores. In its earlier order, the court required the petitioner to pay up the amount within one month. When the petitioner failed to make the payment, an order of termination was made on May 16. The order of termination was challenged in a separate writ petition. The order requiring payment within one month was also challenged in a separate writ appeal. Both matters were clubbed. After Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy recused from hearing the matter, it was heard by the specially constituted panel. The panel enlarged the time by one month for making of payment and gave liberty to the corporation to take action if this was not done.
HC allows police cover for petitioner
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court ruled that when a defendant disobeyed an order of injunction and the plaintiff sought police protection, the court was under an obligation to grant such protection. The judge dismissed a revision petition filed by the defendants Juvvaji Ravinder and Juvvaji Upendra, agriculturists from Palakurthy in Jangaon district. They had challenged an order of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, granting police protection in favour of the plaintiff Jakkula Pushpaleela. The plaintiff had secured an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property of two acres of agricultural land. Even after the grant of the injunction, the defendant petitioners came to the land, threatened to attack her and her labour and tried to plough the land. At that stage, the plaintiff approached the Palakurthy station house officer and gave a complaint. The police refused to take thecomplaint and expressed their inability, as the matter was civil in nature. The court then stepped in and granted police protection. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed the present revision petition. It was the case of the petitioners that against the order of injunction they had filed an appeal before the Principal District Judge at Jangaon and contested that when the appeal was pending, the court below ought not to have granted police aid. He further contended that the application filed by the plaintiff seeking police aid under Section 151 of CrPC was not maintainable when she had other remedies. Rejecting the plea, the judge ruled that when a defendant commits breach of a temporary injunction order the plaintiff is entitled to seek police protection invoking the provision of Section 151 CrPC.
