Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation (APTDC) in a writ appeal pertaining to the invocation of bank guarantee.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, was dealing with a writ appeal filed by Curevin Pharma Pvt. Ltd and another, questioning the action of the bank in not releasing the securities money available with the bank in relation to an expired guarantee. The petitioner contended that it emerged as the successful bidder for tenders invited by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh government to develop tourism projects in Visakhapatnam and for the purpose, deposited Rs 71.7 lakh besides providing bank guarantee for Rs 1.5 crores towards performance security.
The petitioners could not commence the project and had approached the Commercial Court, seeking to restrain the corporation from invoking the bank guarantee, which was accordingly allowed after an elaborate inquiry.
The corporation’s appeal was dismissed, with the court observing that “as the bank guarantee in relation to which the COP was filed, expired on October 25, 2007, no purpose would be served in adjudicating the appeal on merits. Even if the appellant corporation succeeds… time long after its expiry”.
The petitioner was contending that despite the expiry of the bank guarantee, the bank was refusing to release the securities. The bank argued that the guarantee was invoked by the corporation within its validity and it came to know about the arbitration and restraining orders only after the invocation of the bank guarantee by the beneficiary.
A single judge, dismissing the writ petition, observed that the petitioner had not brought to the notice of the court the invocation of the bank guarantee by APTDC before the expiry of its validity. The COP was filed only questioning the invocation of bank guarantee but not the release of securities and hence, they were not entitled to the discretionary relief.
On Wednesday, in an appeal, it was contended that the single judge also appreciated the factum that invocation of bank guarantee was not within the knowledge of the appellants and therefore, the writ petition of the appellants should not have been dismissed. The bench, after perusing the records, issued notices to the respondents.
Consider artisan representation for employment: HC
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday directed TS GENCO to consider representations made by landowners, whose land it acquired, in Chelpur village, seeking jobs as artisans in TS GENCO, KTPP.
The judge issued the order on a writ petition filed by Totla Mounika and another, who contended that their land at Chelpur village of Jayshankar Bhupalpally district was acquired by TS GENCO without paying compensation, and that their earlier representation to authorities requesting compensation did not yield results.
Earlier, the court directed the authorities not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law. However, the petitioner had also made a representation in May 2020 and September 2023 requesting TS GENCO, KTPP, Chelpur village to provide the petitioner's jobs as artisans.
The counsel for the petitioner, Gokula Rama Rao, argued that respondent authorities had not considered the latter representation. The counsel for the respondents, however, assured the court the said representation would now be considered per law.
The judge, expressing no opinion on merits, disposed of the writ plea with a direction to respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders, per law within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and communicate the same to the petitioners.
Exhaust statutory remedy: HC
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday rejected a writ plea complaining that a notice for alleged illegal construction was addressed to the wrong person.
Sayala Kamala, claiming to be the owner of a property in Bellampally municipality, questioned a notice issued by the municipality, which required the recipient to show cause why structures mentioned therein should not be demolished on the grounds of them being illegal.
The petitioner contended that while the property was in her name, the notice under challenge was addressed to her son. Refusing to take on file the writ plea, Justice Vinod Kumar ruled that the petitioner could always move the statutory authorities and the matter did not require invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.
NCLT admits case against telecommunication equipment supplier
The National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad, admitted Smartron India Private Limited to the corporate insolvency process.
The bench of V. Ramakrishna Badarinath and Charan Singh on Wednesday allowed an application filed by ZTE Corporation, a company based out of China, for Rs 8.9 crore. ZTE contended that they are engaged in the business of providing telecommunication equipment and network solutions.
Further, they contended that Smartron approached them for a supply of smartphones and thereafter, violated the supply agreement. Given the failure on part of the Smartron, ZTE filed an application under the insolvency and bankruptcy code.
A resolution professional was also appointed by the tribunal to kick-start the corporate insolvency resolution process.
