Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16355 (AP)

NADIMPALLI KRISHNAM RAJU v. K.S.M.V. KRISHNA RAO

CC/795/2026 · 2026-03-30

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010059332026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 795/2026 Between: 1. NADIMPALLI KRISHNAM RAJU, SON OF SRI N. SATYANARAYANA RAJU R/O. D.NO.3-2-6/1, PUTHINEEDIVARI STREET TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DIST., ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. K S M V KRISHNA RAO, The District Transport Officer Bhimavaram, West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh ...CONTEMNOR Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to may be pleased to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents herein under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Honble Court dated 23.9.2025 in W.P. No.25000 of 2025 and punish the respondents in accordance with law for their contemptuous conduct and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. Y BALAJI 2 3 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri K. Harshavardha Raju, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Abdul Rasheed, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y. Balaji, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents. 2. Sri Abdul Rasheed, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y. Balaji, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that the orders of this Court have been complied with. 3. Sri K. Harshavardha Raju, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, confirms this position that the Orders have been complied with and no further consideration is necessary. 4. Having so recorded, this Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. 5. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Date: 31.03.2026 MNR 4 175 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 795 OF 2026 Dt: 31.03.2026 Mnr 5