Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34830 (AP)

M/S.GRESHMA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD v. SRI S.S.RAWAT

CC/6010/2023 · 2025-03-06

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010544692023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 6010/2023 Between: M/s.greshma Enterprises Pvt Ltd ...PETITIONER AND Sri S S Rawat and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTA KRISHNA DEEPTHI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. NAGARAJU PULLAGURA 2. V CH NAIDU 3. C SUMON 4. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT 5. V V PURNACHANDRA RAO The Court made the following order: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of orders dated 21.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.17148/2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner made a representation on 25.09.2023 along with order copy dated 21.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.17148/2023. Despite the same, the respondents have neither passed any orders nor considered the petitioner’s representation, which amounts to willful disobedience and the respondents/contemnors are liable for punishment and accordingly prayed to punish the contemnors. In reply, Sri Nagaraju Pullagura, learned counsel for the 7th respondent/contemnor submitted that, the orders of this court have been complied with however with certain delay and the said delay is due to administrative reasons and is neither willful nor wanton and the contemnor has great respect on the court. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the contempt case. In view of the submission that orders are passed as per the directions of this Court and having been satisfied with the reasons for delay, this Court feels that there is no contempt as alleged by the petitioner and the contempt case is liable to tbe closed. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. However, the petitioner is not precluded from taking steps against the order passed by the respondent, in accordance with law, if so advised. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS