Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court yet again made it clear that it would not entertain writ petitions in view of the alternative remedy available under the Indian Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar dismissed three appeals filed by Palapala Ankamma Rao and others questioning the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for refusing to review its earlier order of admission of a case under IBC against the petitioners at the instance of Oriental Bank of Commerce (merged with Punjab National Bank). Senior counsel Y.S. Murthy pointed out that the bank was party to negotiations with the petitioners and had received amounts towards purchase of properties connected with the proceedings before the tribunal. He said the act of the bank in including the same for asset valuation and sale was illegal. Murthy argued that the tribunal ought to have allowed the recall petition. The bench refused to enter into factual matters. There were no legal reasons stated in the writ petition for not availing the effective alternative remedy available under the statute.
PIL on govt teachers with fake papers
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court took on file a PIL raising the question of inaction against government teachers submitting fake handicapped certificates The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Sravan Kumar, directed the government to respond to the PIL filed by Diddikadi Gopal, who was aggrieved by the inordinate delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings against government teachers who had submitted fake physically handicapped certificates for getting employment. The petitioner said that he had lodged a complaint against the respondent teachers and others on which disciplinary proceedings were initiated.
Notice to postal dept not served
A piquant situation arose before Justice Sree Sudha of the Telangana High Court, who was dealing with a contempt case filed against the chief postmaster general of Tamil Nadu that was filed by TM Inputs and Services private limited. The judge ordered notice two weeks ago. However, when the matter came up on Wednesday it was seen that the notice was not served. The judge permitted the petitioner to send personal notice and posted the matter after four weeks.
Govt asked for clarity on penalty rates
Justice C. Sumalata asked the state government to clarify whether it could impose revised penalty rates retrospectively. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Namburu Hariprasad and another questioning the levy of 'four lakh penalty on the sale of a natural product (Sauseurea costus, an endangered species) for making ayurvedic medicines. The petitioners questioned the quantum of the penalty. While the petitioner contended that the penalty was only Rs 50,000 under the statute, the government pleader pointed to an amendment enhancing the quantum.
HC seeks info on Chellapura road
Justice M. Sudheer Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Thursday directed the Hyderabad police commissioner to explain why they were obstructing a pathway to a private property in Chellapura. A writ plea was filed by Pushpadevi Japat and another challenging the action of the director of survey and settlement for not demarcating the land. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the police was interfering with the petitioner’s rightful entrance into their property by placing barricades on the allegation that the property belonged to the home department and was being used by the Chellapura police training centre. The court had secured a report from an advocate commissioner on the physical possession of the property with regard to the obstruction created by police. The home department sought time for filing their objections. The matter was adjourned to September 29.
IOL told to return land to owner
Justice S. Nanda of Telangana High Court directed IOL to vacate the retail outlet site at Dharmacherla of Nalgonda district and hand it over to the owner, Nallmothu Himabindu. The agreement of lease on the land was entered into with IBP (now IOL). It expired in January 2018 and the outlet was not functioning. Himabindu, the landowner, moved the petition after the authorities failed to vacate the premises and remove the equipment. Justice Nanda said that IOL had failed to respond to a communication from the landowner offering to renew the lease but had failed to vacate the premises. Though the prayer in the writ petition was in the nature of suit for eviction, Justice Nanda, quoting from a Supreme Court ruling, said, “The state under Article 2 of the Constitution is required to be reasonable, fair, bona-fide and not arbitrary even while acting as a tenant of landlord.” She directed IOL to vacate the premises and hand over possession to the owner.
