Kasula Abhitej, v. Kasula @ Sangem Manvita,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K.LAKSHMAN,K. SUJANA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-11-28. Kasula Abhitej, v. Kasula @ Sangem Manvita,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 214OF 2024 '12 Contempt Case filed Under Sections 10 & of Contempt of Courts Act, 197'l to punish the respondents herein for Willful disobedience of the Orders of the High Court dated 09-08-2023 passed in WP No. 20129 of 2023. Between: Kasula Abhitej, S/o. K. Vidyasagar, Aged 33 years, Occ. Software Employee, Rl/o. A-217, AV lnfo Pride Apartments, Medipally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State-098. ... Petitioner/Petitioner in W. P. No. 20129 ot 2023 AND 1. Kasula Sangem Manvita, W/o. @ Kasula Abhitej, Aged 31 years, Occ. Software Employee, R/o. Flat No. 303, Malathi Apartment, V. V. Nagar, Hubsiguda, Uppal tvlandal, Medchal Malkajgir District, Presently residing at 62, Lindsey Street, Apartment No.
1 , New Bedford, Massachusetts State - 02740, The United States of America. Rep. by her GPA Holder Sangem lvladhusudhan, S/o. Brahmaiah, Aged 69 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, Rl/o. Flat No. 303, Malathi Apartment, V. V. Nagar, Hubsiguda, Uppal Mandal, Medchal District. Permissions "tr,lalkaigiri granted to GPA Holder to Represent Rl as Per Court Order 08. 08. 2024 in lA No. 03/24 in CC. No. 214124 2. Sangem Madhusudhan, S/o. not known to the petitioner, Age 69 years, Occ. Retd. Employee, Rl/o. Flat No. 303, Malathi Apartment, V. V. Nagar, Hubsiguda, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgir District. 3. Sangem Madhavi Latha, W/o. Sangem Mahusudhan, Aged 56 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. Flat No. 303, Malathi Apartment, V. V. Nagar, Hubsiguda, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgir Diskict ... Respondents/Respondents 5,6 & 7 in W'P. No. 20129 ot 2023 Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Soma Srinath Reddy representing Mr. Nageshwar Rao Pujari Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. K.
Jagadishwar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND HON'I}LE SMT. JUSTICE S. SU. IANA CONTEMPT CASE No. 214 OF 2024 ORDER: (Pcr Ilon'ble Sri Justice K. t. akshman) Heard Mr. Sorna Srinath Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Nageshwar Rao Pujari, learned counsel lirr the pctitioner and Mr. K Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel fbl the respondents 2. This Contcrnpt Case is filed alieging willlul and deliberate violation of the order dated 09. 08. 2023 in S'. 1,. No. 20t29 ot2023. 3. Vide the aloresaid order, this Court directed the respondents herein not to leavc thc Country with minor dLiring pcndencl,of G. W. O. P. No. 38 of 2022 rvithout obtaining prior pelnrission o1'the Court below in GWOP No. 38 of 2022. According to the petitioner, rcspondcnt No. I leli the Country '1. with the minor child on II. 01. 202:1 without obtaining priol pennission fiom the Courl belorv in GWOP No. 38 ol' 2022.
Therefore, the resporldents violated the aforesaid order rvilltully and deliberately C. C. No 214 of2024 5. The respondents filed counter contending that after going to USA, respondent No. I apptied for another Passport for the minor daughter, US Government has issued a second passport to the minor child. The US Citizen Services granted 'E. xit Pennit' to the minor girl so as to exit on or before 31. 01 . 2024. Thereflore, she came back to India and took the minor girl to USA on 11. 01. 2024. She was compelled to come down to India in the rnonth ol December. 2023 and took the minor girl to USA on I1. 01. 2024 as petitions seeking permission to travel abroad seem to take some time before disposal which would put the minor child under grave loss and sullcrance. 6. It is apt to note that the petitioner and respondent No. I are the husband and wife, while respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of respondent No. l. The marriage of thc petitioner with respondent No. 1 was perforrned on 01.
03. 20 17. lt is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with a baby girl, named'Kasula Medha Sree'on 27. 06. 2019 She is Citizen of USA. Thereafier, disputes arose between them. According to respondent No. l, the petitioner harassed her and, therefore, she came back to India from USA on 06. 1L. 2021 along with the child on the occasion of wedding anniversary of the parents of the petitioner. The mother of petitioner filed a complaint under Section - 200 of Cr. P. C. and w J Cl C No 214 ot 2024 the same was referred to the police against respondent No. I lor the oflences punishable undcr Sections - 223,306 and 294 of IPC. Even on the complaint lodged by respondent No. l, a case in Crirne No. 399 of 2022 was registered against the petitioner. On completion of investigation, the lnvestigating Officer laid charge sheet and the same was taken on flle vrdc C. C. No. 4267 of 2022 'l'hereafter. 7. the petitioner filed a petirion under Section - 9 of the Hindu Mariage Act yide FCOP No.
693 ol 202? against rcspondent No. 1 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. He has also f-rled a petition vlde CWOP No. 38 of 2022 under Sections - l0 and 25 ot'the Guardian and Wards Act seeking custody of the minor child. The same is pending. However, the trial Court granted visitation rights and aLso inrerim custodv in favour of the petitioner herein. Respondent No. I left USA by keeping the child with her parents i. e. , respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. Thus, according to thc petitioner, the minor child is in illegal custody of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and respondent No. I in collusion with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is trying to take the rninor child to USA ro deleat visitation rights granted to him vide order dated 30. 06. 2023 in I. A. No. 29 of 2022 in GWOP No. 38 of 2022. Kt-,J & SKS,J C. C. No. 2l4 of2024 8.
It is trite to note that vide the aforesaid order, the trial Court permitted the petitioner to take the rninor child on every second and fourth Sunday in a month to his house from respondent No. I between 10. 00 A. M. and 5. 00 P. M. and drop her at the house of respondent No. 1 after 5. 00 P. M. Therefore, he filed the aforesaid writ of habeas corpus vide W. P. No. 20129 of 2023, to direct the Station House Officer, Osmania University Police Station, Hyderabad (respondent No. 4) to produce the minor child whose cunent whereabouts are not known and declare the action of the Station House Officer, Osmania University Police Station in not taking action on the missing complaint lodged by him dated 20. 07. 2023 as illegal 9. Vide the order dated 09. 08. 2023, this Cout disposed of the said writ petition holding as follows: i Respondents 6 and 7 are dirccted to compll' rvith thc orders dated 30. 06. 2023 in I. A. No. 29 ot2022 in GWOP No.
38 o12022 passed by the leamed Principal District and Sessions Judge - cum - Family Court, Medchal-Malkaj giri District at Malkaj giri. They shall cooperate with the petitioncr in taking the rninor child by name'Kasula Medha Srec' during the aforesaid period. llr They shall not creatc any hurdle including locking of house, non-availability of the minor child etc. KI-. J & SKS. J C. C No 211 042024 lv They shalt gir,c custody olthe minor child on 2nd and 4'h Sunday in a month to the pctitioncr to enable hinr to takc the rninor child to his house liorr 10. 00 n. M. to 5. 00 P. M. Thel' shall bring the child to the house ol thc respondcnts 6 and 7 aftcr 5. 00P. M on the aforesaid days in compliancc with thc ordcr dated 30. 06. 2023 \l Libert-v- is sranted to the respondents -5 and 6 to seck modiflcation of thc albresaid order dated 30. 06. 2023 and also to challenge the said order. v Violation if ani,o['this order by thc parlies rvill be vier. ved seriously.
YUt Rcspondcnts 5 to 7 are directed not to leave the Countn,rvith minor child during llLc pcndency of the aforesaid GWOP No. i8 ol 2022 u,ithout obtaining prior permission ol the Court bclorv in GWOP No. l8 ol 2012. lx This order is sub. icot to rcsult oICRP (SR) No. 29709 of'2023 flled by thc pctitioncr. " Thus, this Court dirt'cted the respondents herein not to leave the Country with rninor child during pendency of GWOP No. 38 ol 2022 without obtaining prior pernrission of the Court below in GWOP No. 38 of 2022. 10. According to the petitioner, respondent No. I telt the Country along rvith minor girl on 11. 01 . 2024 and thus she has violared the said order rvil[fullv and deliberatelv 1l Respondent No. 1 has executed a General Power of Attomey dated 06. 01. 2023 in favour ol her father, respondent No. 2 herein who KL,] & SKS. J C. C No 214 of2024 filed counter on his behatf and on behatf of respondent Nos. l and 3. Paragraph No.
6 of the said counter is relevant and the same is extracted below: "6. I submit that, after going to USA. thc respondent No. I has applied for another passport for the minor daughter and accordingly the US governmcnt has issued a second passport to the minor daughter. The petitioner herein, having come to know about the issuance of passport by thc L. lS govemmcnt through his illegal spying on the rcspondcnt No. l. Illed a pctition beforc thc I-lon'ble Family court lcigning innocence by seeking to direct the respondent No. l to dcposit the 2'd passport before the coun and also filcd anothcr petition by permitting him to deposit ihe passport which was in his custody. The petitioner has illcgally kept the passport ol thc minor in his custody for rnore than onc ycar and dcerned it beneficial to him for dcpositing thc passport so that the respondent No. l will also be compellcd to do thc salne. At the same time the respondent No.
l herein filed a petition seeking permission to leave the country. It is pertinent to mcntion here that the US Citizen Services have grantcd Exit Permit to the minor girl so as to exit on or belore 3l-l-2024. As such. the respondent No. 1 herein has and was compelled to corne dorvn to India in thc month of December, 2023 and took thc minor with her to USA on I l-01-2024 as the petitions sceking permission to travel abroad seemed to take somc time before disposa[ which would put the minor child under grave loss and sufferance. Subsequently all the petitions filed beiore the Hon'ble Family Court were withdrawn by the respective KL,] & SKS,J C C No 21. 1o1 202{ partics. The lcspondcnt No. l secks unconditional apology for her actions. but thc minor daughter's u,elfare and future cndcarours \\cre at stake and if the respondent No. I had not donc s hat shc did. thc minor daughtcr rvould still be at india and sul'[tr Ibr no lault of hers. " 12. fhus, resltondent No.
I admitted that she has obtained second passport of the minor daughter from US Govemment and also 'Exit permit' as per u,hich she has to take the minol child to USA on or belbre 31. 0 1. 2024. According to her, petitions seeking permission ro travel abroad seem to take some time before disposal which would put the minor child under grave loss and sufferance. l'hus, she took the minor chitd keeping her welfare and luture in mind. She sought unconditional apology for the said actions. Thus, respondent No. l admitted that she left tlie Country on ll. 0l . 2024 along with minor child without obtaining prior perrnission from tl. re Court below in GWOP No. 38 of 2022. She is also aware of the order dated 09. 08. 2023 in W. P. No. 20129 of 2023. She has not even filed a petition in W. P. No. 20 129 of 2023 seeking moditlcation ol' order dated 09. 08. 2023 13. I-earned counsel fol the respondents placing reliance on the order dated 29 12. 2023 in C. R. P. No. 2336 of 2023.
would contend that this Court fbund lault u,ith the attitude of the petitioner. According to CC No. 214 of 2024 leamed counsel, the petitioner has already filed SLP against the said order and the same is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 14. This is a contempt case filed by the petitioner under Sections -l0 and 12 o[the Contempt ofCourts Act, l97l against the respondenrs alleging willful and deliberate violation of order dated 09. 08. 2023 ln W. P. No. 20129 of 2023. Therefore, the scope of contempt is very limited. This Court cannot travel beyond the scope of the present contempt case. 15. In Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhair, the Apex Court laid the following conditions to be satisfied belore a person can be held to have committed civil contempt: there must be a judgmbnt. decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court; It there must be disobcdicnce to such judgment, decree, direction, order.
rvrit or other process ol a court; and I such disobedience of the judgmcnt, decree, direction, order, writ or other proccss ol a court must be willful. (2008) 14 scc '. 561 { Kt-. J & SKS,J C C No 21. 1 of2021 16. Ir. r Kanrvar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi2, the Apex Court also held that contemnor is entitled to the protection of all safeguards/rights, including benefrt of doubt. 17. Relying on the aforesaid decisions, in Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (deceased) rep. by LRs. r, thc Aper Coun laid down cenain principles goveming the exercise of contempr Paragraph Nos. 4 . jurisdiction. l, 42, 44, 45, 47 and 48 are relevant and the same are extracted hereunder: '40. lhc ob. iect of the discipline enforced by thc courl in casc of. contempt of court is not to vindicirte thc dignity of the court or the person ol thc . ludge. but to prcvent undue interl'ercnce rr'ith tht. adm inistration oljusticc.. 4l . Anl intcrt'crence u,ith the course of .
justice is an afliont to the majcsty of law and the conducr of interference is punishable as corltcu]pt of court. Public interest demands that thcre shr. ruld be no interf'erencc with the judicial process. and the effect of the judicial decision should not be pre-empted or circumvented. (Rcliance Petrochemicals [-td. v. Proprietors of lndian F. xpress Neu,spapers Bornbay Pvt. Ltd. and Othcrs reported in ( t988) 4 SCC 592). '?. lzorzy + scc :ou r. 2023 INSC 805 C C No. 2l4 of2024 42. lf a party, who is fully in the know ol the judgment/ordcr of the Court, is conscious and aware of thc consequences and irnplications of the order of the Court, acts in violation thereof, it must be held that disobedience is wilful. 1'o estabtish contempt ol court, it is sulficient to prove that the conduct was wilfu[, and that the contemnor knew of all the facts which made it a breach oI the undertaking. 43. xxxxx 44.
tt behovcs the court to act with as Sreat circumspection as possible, making all allowances lor emors of judgment. It is only when a clear case olbontumacious conduct, not exptainablc otherwisc, arises that the contemnor must be punishcd. Punishment under the larv of contempt is called for when the lapse is detiberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance ol authority. Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and the standard of proof is the same as in other criminal cases. The alleged contemnor is entitlcd to the protcction of all safeguards/rights, including bcnefit of doubt. [Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi rcported in (2012) 4 SCC 3071. 45. The sanctity to judicial proceedings is paramounl to a society governed by [aw' Otherwise, the very edifice of democracy breaks and anarchy reigns. The Act l97l is intended to I1 C. (1. No. 2l4 ot2024 correct a person deviating lrorn the norm and trying to breach the larv/assuming law on to himscll.
It intends to secure confldencc ol'the pcoplc in the administrarion ol' justice bv disciplining those erring in disobeying the orders of thc Court/undertaking given to court. 46. xxxxx ,17. The Constitutional Bench of this Court in the casc o[' Supreme Court Bar Association (supra). rvhile discussing the ambit o['powcrs undcr thc Act l97l and the principles to bc lollorvccl uhilc punishing a party held as under: '' 28. An anal)',sis ol Ihe dbovc prot'ision shotvs that . srrb-scttiort (l) o/ ,\ection l2 provitles that in o case oJ e. stablishetl contentpt, thc contemner mdy bt punishL,d. (u) trith sintplc inysri. sonment h. ,, datention in a c i','il i. son 1tr or (b) \ ith /ina. L'r (L') with both. A cureful reuding of suh-section (2) ofsection l2 reyeals that the . Lct place. r an embargo on lhe &)ttrl n()l ttt itnJtu. tc d. \enlcnce in cxce. s. s of the . \antaltc( ltt cstrihctl uruicr . sub-scc. tion (l ). A closa . sc'r'utinl 4 . tt t-set. tion (3) ol. section l2 denortstrate .
s thut tha legi. sluture tntendetl thal in thc cn. ;t' ol c'ivil contempt a sentence of Jine ttttsne should be itnposcd excepl where the court t'onsider; that the cnds ofjustice make il necessory to pess (t scnt? nce o. f intprisonment also. Dealing with intytsilion of punishmant under Seclion 12(3) o/' tha Act, it1 the case o. f pushpaben v. Narundas l' Iladiuni [(1979) 2 SCC 394 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 51lJ this C'ourt opincd; (SCC p. 396, para 6) ''6. A close and core/ul interprelalton of the arlracted scttion lauye. s no room /br doubt that the t2 C. C No. 214 of2024 legislature intendetl thot o sentence of Jine alone should be imposed in normal circumstances. The statute, hov,ever, con;t'ers special power on the Court to poss a sentence of imprisonment if it thinks thctt ends oJ'justice so require Thus be ore o Courl Dusses the extreme senlence of imDrisonmenl.
it must sive soecial reasons after a o r tcalrcn o its mind that a sentence o imprisonment alone is called for in a particular situotion. Thus. lhe sentence of imnrisonment is an excepl ionwhile senlence offine is the tule. " Xxx xxx xxx 'the 31. object of punishment being both curative and corrective, these coercions are meant to assisl an individual complainanl to enforce his remedy and there is also an element of public policy for punishing civil conlcmpt, since the administralion o[. juslice vould be undermined if the order of any court o. [ lov' is to bc disregarded wilh impunity. Under some circumslances, compliance of the orJer may hc secured wilhoul resorl lo coercion. through the conlempt power. For example, di. sobedience of an order to pay a sum of money muy be eflbclively countered by attaching the earnings qf lhe contemner. In the same manner, committing the person of the defaulter to prison . for to comply u,ith an order of specifLc .
foilure perfbrmunce of conveyance of property, ntay be mct also by the court directing thal the conveyance be completed by an appoinled person. Disobedience of an undertaking may in the like munner be enforced through process other thqn committal lo prison as for example where the breach of undertaking is to deliver possession of pt'operty in a landlord-tenant dispute. Apart from punishing lhe contemner, the court to maintain the miesty of law may direct lhe police force to be utilised recovery of possession and burden the for conlemner with costs, exemplary or otherwise. Xxx xxx xxx 36. ln deciding whether a contempt is serious enough lo meril imprisonment, lhe court will take into account the likelihood of interference with the administralion of justice and the culpability of the offender.
The inlention with which the acl complained of is done is a material factor in 1i C C No 214 of2024 deteruining +t'hat punishmenl, in a given case, wotrlLl be appropriate -Y,r:l- ,r-rr ,r--rr 'l l2 lte Lontuntpt ol courl is tt . :peciul jurisdiction to b;' crcrci. setl . sparinglv und with caution y,hencver un ucl adverscly allecls the administraliotz of justice or v,hich tends to impede its coursc or tends to shoke public conJidence in t h c u d i r: r o . i I i ns I it ut io n. \. T h i. s j u r is tl i c t io n may al so hc excrcised u,hen the act utmplained of adversely u/Jbcr: thc ma. lest. v o/ luw or dignity of lhe courts. l'he purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the mrtjesty, and dignity (i the courl. s of law. lt is an unusttul ry,pe of jurisdictbn utnbining "the jury, the judge " and thc hangman and it is so becquse tltc (ourt i. s not adludicutitl! upon an. v claim hti\'(rn litiguting purlie. s Thi: iurisdic'tion is not (rerLi\ed to prota(t the drynit.
t ol an individual btrt to prote(t lhe udntinittrution of justice -iudgt jrom heing mdligned. ln thc generul interest of lhe t'omntunitf il is imperali'c thut the authority of t'ourl. ; should not be impctillctl and there should be no unjustifioble interlerence in the Lulntitti. struti0n 01'juslice. lt i. \ d tolter betv,een the (ourl tmd lhe conlemner atd third parlies cannot tnt(r\t n( lt is ex,'rci. ted itt u ;trmmary manner in uid o/ tht admini. stration ol justicP, the maiesty of luw and the dignity oJ lhe courts. No such act can bc pcrmilled whi<h may hute the tendency to shake the public con/idence in tlte . fairness ond rmparlialily of lhc udminislralion o/ " . iustice. ( limphasis supplied) . 11{. To hold a persou guiltv ol civil contempt. 'rr illul disobedicncc" is an indispensable requirernent. Whcthcr the conduct of conlemnor is deliberate and u'ilful can be considered by assessing the material on record and attendant c irculnstances. ^' l4 C C No. 214 ot2024 18.
The Apex Courl also considered what willful disobedience is' The Apex Court held that the expression or word "willful" means an act or omission which is done voluntarily or ir. rtentionally and with the the law forbids or with the specific specihc intent to do something u,hich law requires to be done, that is to say intent to lait to do something the with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with cvil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. 19. In the light olthe atbLesaid principle, coming to the facts ol the case on hand, as discussed above, respondent No. 1 herself admitted that despite a direction by this Courl vide orderdated 09. 08. 2023 in W. P. No. 20129 of 2023 nor to leave the country along with minor child without prior permission of the Court below in GWOP No'38 ol 2022' she left the country on 11. 01. 2024 along with minor child.
The only explanation offered by her is that as per the Exist Permit, she has to take filed seeking the minor child to USA on or before 31. 01. 2024. Petition permission to travel abroad in Court is taking time' Therefore' she left the Country along with the minor on I 1'01'2024 itself' 20. In paragraph No. 6 olthe counter affidavit, she has specifically stated that on obtaining second passport and exit pemrit, she came back in W'P' to India in December, 2023 i. e. , after the order dated 09'08'2023 ,J. l5 KL,J & SKSJ C C No 214 of2024 No. 20129 of 2023, took the child to USA on 11. 01. 2024. Thus, she is awarc ofthe order dated 09. 08. 2023 and the direction of this Court not ro leave the Countrv along rvith minor child without obtaining prior permission of the Court bclow in GWOP No. 38 of 2022. Even then, she went abroad. She has not llled a petition in W. P. No. 20129 of 2023 seeking modification ol' the order datcd 09. 08.
2023 bringing the aforesaid facts to the notice of this Court. The explanation offered by respondent No. 1 is not satisl'actorv and the same cannot be accepted. 21. In the light of the aforesaid discussion. this Court is of the considered view that rcspondent No. I has committed willful and deliberate violation o1- thc ordcr dated 09. 08. 2023 passed by this Court in W. P. No. 20129 of 2t)23 and she is liable for punishment in terms of Section - 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 22. As far as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, in view of I the albresaid discussion. the petitioner failed to make out any case to punish them under thc provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and, therefore, this contcmpt is liable to be olosed against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 23. The present Contempt Case is accordingly allowed in part sentencing respondent No. I to suffer simple imprisonment for a period t6 KL,J & SKSJ CC No. 214 ot2024 of two (02) months and to pay a fine ol Rs.
2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) within 04 (four) weeks from today. As far as respondent Nos. 2 and 3, this Contempt Case is closed against them. [n the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Contempt Case shall stand closed. Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY RESISTRAR (O //TRUE COPY// sEcTlo'trl-oFFrcER To, c. Jo. 1. Kasula Abhitej, S/o. K. Vidyasagar, A-217, AV lnfo Pride Apartments, Medipally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State-098. 2. Sangem Madhusudhan, S/o. Brahmaiah, GPA Holder of Kasula @ Sangem Manvita, Wo. Kasula Abhitej R/o. Flat No. 303, Malathi Apartment, V. V. Nagar, Hubsiguda, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgir District. 3. The Registrar (Judicial-l), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 4. The Section Officer, O. S. Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 5.
The Section Officer, Accounts Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 6. One CC to Mr. Nageshwar Rao Pujari, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Mr. K. Jagadishwar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies DL HIGH COURT DATED:2811112024 I IHE S 14 I ORDER ( t o CC. No. 214 of 2024 o u ? q lq )n? t I t ) . q-t * ATTC C. C. IS ALLOWED IN PART l0 () t)', 7 e"L dr
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.