HYDERABAD: Justice K. Lakshman of Telangana High Court directed the Securities Exchange Board of India (Sebi) to consider a representation for not withholding an amount to the tune of Rs 87.50 lakh deposited with them. The judge passed the order in a batch of writ petitions filed by Bhavana Investor Services Ltd, which deals in shares and securities. The petitions challenged Sebi’s action in withholding the amount claiming that the petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs 1,74,29,381 as transaction fees which have been defaulted. The petitioner contended that the rules by which Sebi took the decision cannot apply to the petitioner as it was clearly prospective. The petitioner pointed out that the said rules came into force only in 2002 and the company had completed five years of membership in 2000. Thereafter, it was required to pay only a consolidated fee under the 1992 Rules to keep its registration in force. The judge after perusing the records directed both the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd and Sebi to consider the specific contentions of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
Credai elections stayed till June 28
The additional chief judge, the city civil court, stayed the election process of the executive committee of Credai (the Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Associations of India) for the years 2023-25. The judge was dealing with a petition, filed by Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd, on Credai’s election notice proposing to conduct the elections for 2023-25. The petitioner complained that Credai has not been complying with the mandatory requirements of sending the electoral roll to all its members along with the election notice. The petitioner further contended that the said notice was in violation of provisions under the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Credai. The judge ordered notices to Credai and stayed the election process till June 28.
HC blow for police complex in Utkoor
Justice K Lakshman of the Telangana High Court faulted the state government for taking contradictory stands with regard to land allegedly allotted for the construction of a district police complex in Utkoor mandal of Narayanpet district. The judge allowed two writ petitions filed by 10 beneficiaries, including those who were allotted small plots as house sites in the area. The petitioners questioned the order cancelling their pattas and the consequential allotment for the purpose of the complex. The land in question was acquired by the government for providing house sites to eligible beneficiaries belonging to weaker sections in Narayanpet municipality. The land was taken over from the original owners by the government. The petitioners are beneficiaries of this scheme. The petitioners alleged that the government had failed to provide minimum facilities like water and power supply because of which they could not complete the construction of their dwelling places. They stated that they had paid '10,000 each to a constructor. The judge faulted the revenue authorities for raising contradictory pleas. He pointed out that on the one hand, the government claimed that the petitioners had failed to carry out constructions, and on the other that it was patta land and that the claim of the petitioners was bogus. The judge traced the title in the property and its purpose of acquisition by purchase. He accordingly allowed the writ petitions. He also declared that the said action was in violation of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution and the Directive Principles of State Policy. He set aside the allotment of the said land for the construction of the complex.
Officials’ role limited in RoR Act: HC
Justice K Lakshman of the Telangana High Court ruled that the role of the revenue authorities under the Record of Rights Act is limited. “They will consider the documents produced by the parties and acquisition of rights based on the same. They are not empowered to consider complicated questions of facts, including the title of parties”, the judge said. He was dealing with a total extent of about nine acres of land in Mothi Ghanpur of Mahbubnagar district. The land originally belonged to Lakshman B. Binny. The original owner executed a registered deed of mortgage by a conditional sale. Under the document, the petitioner received a sum of Rs 10 lakh. The document provided that on failure to make the payment, the title will be passed in favour of the purchaser ltteboiena Rajkumar Yadav. The revenue authorities, based on the said document, mutated the revenue record in the name of the prospective purchaser. When the records were mutated in favour of the original owner, the matter was challenged before the revenue authorities leading to the writ petition. Justice Lakshman recorded the multiple transactions between various parties and the civil suits. The order of the authorities in mutating the record in favour of the original owner was upheld leaving it open to all the parties to raise the issues in the civil suit pending with the senior civil judge, Mahbubnagar.
