M/s Aurobindo Pharma Limited v. M/s. Vani Venkatesh Traders
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K.LAKSHMAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-20. M/s Aurobindo Pharma Limited v. M/s. Vani Venkatesh Traders. Read the judgment and case details...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA // AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4216 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, Aggrigyed by the order dated 21 . 08. 2025 passed in l. A. No, 4712025 in O. S No. 9912023 and consequently allow the l. A. No. 4712025 filed by the Petitioner in O. S No. 9912023, by the Court of the lll Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, At Kukatpally, in the interests of iustice. Between: M/s Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Corp. Office at Galaxy, Floors 22-24, Plot No. 1, Survey No. 83/1, Hyderabad Knowledge City, Raidurg Panmaktha, Ranga Reddy District, Hydeiabad Rep. by its authorized signatory Mr. V Vamsi Krishna. ... Petitioner in l. A /Defendant -2 in OS AND 1. M/s. Vani Venkatesh Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor K. Venkateswar Rao, S/o Arjun Rao, R/o 5/35/315, Flat No.
20'1, RJ Jai Chaitanya Heights, Sai Baba Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500072 ... Respondent -1 in l. A. / Plaintiff in OS 2. Muneer Ahmed Gulam, S/o Gulam Mohammed, Aged Major, Occ- Business, 'l Proprietor of Metro Enterprises, R/o H. No. 1-226, Shanthinagar, Behind MRO Office, Patancheru Town and Mandal, District Medak, T. S. ... Respondent -2 in l. A. / Defendant -l in OS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in O. S No. 9912023, pending before the lll Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkaigiri District, At Kukatpally. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. ABHINAYA REDOY, Advocate representing Ms JAKKAMANASVI REDOY, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH CoIJRT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD HON' BI-I' SRI . IUSTICE K.
LAKSIIMAN CIVIL RBVISION PETITION Nos. 4216 OF 2025 Datez2O-02-2026 Ilctlvcen M/s Aurobindo Pharma Limited . . Petitioner and M/s Vani Venkatesh Tradels antl another Respondents l-his Court passed the fbllowing ORDER lleard Sri Abhinaya Reddy, learned counsel representing Ms Jakka Manasvi Reddy, learned counsel fbr the petitioner 2. Despite sc'rvice of notice, there is no representation on behal f' of respondenl s. i. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution ol lndia assailing the order dated 21. 08. 2025 passed in LA. No. 47 ol 2025 in O. S. No. t)9 of 2023 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri Disrrict, At Kukatpally and consecluently to allou, the said application 4. I't respondent plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit in - O. S. No. 99 of 20 l6 against the petitioner herein Defendant No. 2 -and 2nd respondent herein Defendant No. I seeking recovery o[ an -amount of Rs. I 7,93,266l- with interest at 24%o p. a.
(For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are referred in O. S. No. 99 of 2016) 5. 2'd defendant entered appearance and filed written statement in the said suit. During pendency of the said suit, it has lrled an application vide I. A. No. 41 of 2025 under Order 8 Rule l(3) read with Section 151 ofCPC to receive gate passes issued by it from 05. 02. 2014 to 07. I I . 2014 with serial numbers as mentioned in the list of documents annexed therewith for the purpose of marking the same as exhibits. 6. It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that it has raised various invoices on Defendant No. l for the scrap material dispatched and having received the scrap material in several dispatches during the year 2014, Defendant No. I handed over Demand Draft to Defendant No. 2 towards sale amount of scrap material. In the process of the delivery of scrap material, Defendant No. 2 issued gate passes to Defendant No.
l for each consignment at the tilne of delivery to the D. l, the said gate passes were srgned by D. I and the said passes are corresponding to the invoices raised by the Det'endant No. 2. Office copies of the said invoices were alreadl' filed befbre the trial Court. However, due to oversight, thc said gate passes were not filed along with the written statement rvhich is neithcr willful nor wanton 7. I']laintiff filed counter opposing the said application contending that Detendant No. 2 has not explained bona fide reasons lor not ti ling the said gate passes along with the written statelrent 8. Ilowevcr, vide impugned order dated 21. 08. 2025, learned (]our1 disrnissed trial thc said application holding that to receive the docurncnts, l)efendant No. 2 has to mention bona fide reasons Skipping thc docurnents due to oversight is not a bona fide reason. 9. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present [evtstoll. I 0. It is the specific contention of Defendant No.
2 that it has meriiloiied tlrc afbresaid fhcts of issuance of gate passes, invoices and receipt of material etc, in the written statement filed by it in the said suit. ll. Perusal olthe said written statement would reveal that in paragraph No. 6, the petitioner herein has specifically stated that since Defendant No. l tendered the demand drafts, drawn in the name of Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 2 raised invoices and gate passes in the name of Defendant No. I as a proof of sale of the material and delivery of the same to Defendant No. l. Therefore, the petitioner has laid foundation in filing the aforesaid application under Order 8 Rute 1(3) of CPC. Without considering the said aspects, Ieamed trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application. [2. Therefore, the impugned order is not on consideration of the aforesaid aspects, more particularly, the aforesaid contention of Deflendant No.
2 in the written statement which shows that it has laid foundation in filing the aforesaid application. Thus, this Court is of the view that to do substantial justice to the parties, it is just and necessary to allow Defendant No. 2 to hle the aforesaid gate passes 13. In the light ol the aforesaid discussion, this revtston ts allorved. 'fhc impusned older dated 2. 1. 08. 2025 passed ln I. A. No. 47 o1'1015 in O. S. No. 99 of 2023 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, At Kukatpatly, is set aside and the said I. A. No. 41 of 2025 in O. S. No. 99 ol'2023 is allorved Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in the revision shall stand closcd SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG SI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, t The lllAddl Drstrict & Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, At Kukatpally, 2. One CC to Mr ABHINAYA REDDY.
Advocate representing, MS JAKKA MANASVI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3 Two CD Copies PSI- HIGH COURT DATED: 2010212026 ,/. - /.. ! vl. l. (l( /r . o' -) ''r Z ') ? 1ilt 6 C) \ \ t D ORDER Es CRP. No. 4216 of 2025 Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is Allowed ,r? 't JG (r -nllze
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.