Vulli Krishna Chaitanya, v. DUSARI KRISHNAIAH
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-09. Vulli Krishna Chaitanya, v. DUSARI KRISHNAIAH. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
\ [ 3418 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CONTEMPT APPEAL NO:16OF2024 contempt Appeal filed under sections 19(1)(a) of contempt of courts Act, 1971 against the order dated 27-09-2o24 macr- in c. c. No. 2s0 ot 2024 on tre fite of the Hon'ble H(7h Court. Between: Vulli Krishna C^haitanya, S/o. V. Raja Mohan, Aged 33 years, Occ. private PJo. 201, RRR Arcade, Jagruthi Colony, Igryice. , Road No. 3, Kondapur, Hyderabad . ... AppeHant AND Dusari Krishnaiah, S/o. l. {ot known to the petitioner, Sub-lnspector of police, Police Station Adibatla, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy Distriat ...
Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstanc-es stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to punish the Respondent herein in committing offence uts. 227, 229 & 229 of BNSS in connection with sworn Counter Affidavit filed in CC No. 280 ot 2024 by suspending the order passed in CC No. 2SO of 2024, dt. 27. Og. 2O2A. Counsel for the Appellant : Mr Thirumal Rao Mamidata Counsel for the Respondent : - - - The Court delivered the following Judgment : '-7 THE HON'BLE THE CEIEF JUSTICEAI. OKARADHI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CONTEMPT APPEAL Ito. l 6 of2O24 JUDGMENT: Eet the Honbte tre ChieJ Justice Abk Aradhe) Mr. Thirumal Rao Mamidala, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Heard on the question of admission 3. In appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of . this Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"), the appellant has assailed the validit5r of the order dated I I 27.
O9. 2O24 in C. C. No. 25O of 2024 by which the learned Single Judge has accepted the unconditional apolory tendered by the respondent arrd has closed the contempt proceedings. 4. It is a well settled legal proposition that an appeal under Section 19 of the Act lies only against an order imposing punishment in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt (see State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. n Allibhoyt and Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Limited v. Chunilal lfanda2). 5. In 'riew of the aforesaid enunciation of larr, this l 1 appeal is held to be not maintainable. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with the liberty to the appellant to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him in law. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REG R //TRr,rE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Two CCs to the GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] 2. One CC to Mr Thirumal Rao Mamidala, Advocate [OPUC] 3.
Two CD Copies VA/gh '(tggo)+scclrr (2006) 'z 5 scc 399 / I , \ HIGH COURT DATED:09t1212024 sTArF t. O7. 1 q f lstt trt o tt o I ,/ ::-:-- JUDGMENT CA. No. 16 of 2024 DISMISSING THE APPEAL il*l \ ! D
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.