Hyderabad: A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday admitted a writ appeal filed by Electronics Corporation of India Limited [ECIL] on the question of liability to pay enhanced gratuity. The panel comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar were dealing with a claim of the Public Sector Undertaking that it was not bound to make the said payment in view of a decision in this regard by the board of directors and confirmed by the concerned ministers. Earlier, the Officers Association of the PSU moved the authorities to pay gratuity amounting to approximately Rs 13 crore for the period from January 2007 to April 2010. The claim for enhancement was based on certain guidelines issue by Government of India. ECIL contended that the guidelines were not mandatory. It further stated that board of directors had refused such extension in 2009 and the same was approved by the concerned ministry. However, the government in 2010 amended the law and enhanced the amount from Rs 3.5 lakh to Rs 10 lakh. The claim for the earlier term was contested by ECIL. The panel will hear the connected matters on Monday. It directed that the amount shall not be released until the appeals are heard on Monday.
HC grants bail in real estate case to children of realtor
Justice J. Sreedevi of the Telangana High Court granted an anticipatory bail to children of a realtor in an alleged cheating case. The judge was dealing with a petition filed by Guntupalli Anusha and another. It is the case of the petitioner that they were running a real estate company named M/s. EVK Projects Pvt Ltd. The complainant stated that they approached the petitioners for purchase of two villas called “EVK Shri Shilpa” at Shankerpally, at the rate of Rs 70 lakh each and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on October 27, 2021. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioners informed the complainant that they lost the site and would refund money within six months, but the petitioners did not refund it as agreed, and thus, cheated the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner Soma Srinath Reddy contended that the said crime is registered on baseless allegations and petitioners never cheated the complainant or any other person. It was further contended that the entire investigation was completed; including the recording of statements of witnesses and only charge sheet is to be filed and accordingly prayed for anticipatory bail. The judge perused the complaint along with material papers and said, “It is apparent that civil suits were filed against the property sold by the petitioners herein, due to which, the petitioners could not proceed with construction work as promised to the complainant, and thus, prima facie, they do not have an intention to cheat the complainant, but they could not honour the agreement for reasons beyond their control and thus, the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC would not prima facie attract as there should be an intention to cheat from the beginning itself. It is to be noted that the petitioners have registered the land in favour of complainant and the petitioners never misappropriated such property in any manner.” The judge also pointed out that, “in order to attract an offence under Section 5 of the TSPDFE Act, there should be a financial establishment and it should have defaulted in the return of the deposits either in cash or kind or ought to have defaulted in the payment of interest on the deposit as agreed upon and there is no agreement between the parties to consider that the amount was deposited with an intention to receive interest on that. The petitioners are not running any financial establishment, but are running a real estate company.” The judge accordingly granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the conditions.
Loyola College challenges edu dept inaction
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court ordered notices in a writ plea filed by Loyola Educational Society and others challenging non-renewal of recognition orders. The petitioners challenged the inaction of national and state Education department in not considering the representation made by the petitioner seeking recognition status since 2021. The judge reprimanded the respondents for institutionalising such a conduct and not passing renewal of recognition orders and permission for shifting of the college from Parkal, Warangal district to Piglipur in Rangareddy. The court while issuing notice to the respondents also pointed out that is has become common practice for respondent authorities to sit upon such representations for years until faced with an intervention by the court.
HC to hear plea on Siddipet police action
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of Telangana High Court will hear the plea seeking judicial probe in an alleged high-handed action by police officials of Siddipet II town police station. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Mrs G. Swetha and G. Rakesh challenging the action of respondent police officials in arresting and detaining Rakesh, a town planning section officer. The petitioner alleged that police arrested Rakesh in violation of a conditional bail order granted earlier by the High Court. The petitioner sought judicial enquiry, investigation and appropriate departmental action against inspector B. Upender, sub-inspectors Y.V. Reddy, and Uma Reddy of the said police station for allegedly framing Rakesh and his family members in a false case and arresting him. The judge accordingly directed counsel representing state to seek instructions by next date and posted it for August 6.
HC faults endowment for not complying with its orders
Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court while dealing with a contempt plea faulted the endowment authorities and the executive officer of the Sri Laxminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam for their failure to comply with court orders. Earlier, the judge directed the endowment authorities to consider the case of petitioners for regularisation of services within two months. Four daily wage workers employed at the Sri Laxminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam at Yadagirigutta complained that the orders of the court was wantonly not complied with. The court through its order declared that the notice of the endowment authorities rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner contended that services of persons who are similarly situated were regularised overlooking the court orders to regularise the services of the petitioners. The judge accordingly directed compliance of the order within a week and made it clear that if the authorities fail to comply with the orders, the concerned official should appear in person in court.
