Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Staff And ... vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal on 9 February, 2024
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
1
[ 3353 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 17244 OF 2022
Between:
KIRLAMPUDI SUGAR MILLS STAFF AND WORKERS UNION, Rep. by
its General Secretary, Dasari Krupanandam, S/ o. Late Veera Raju, Aged
about 58 years, Occ. Presently Nil, R/o. H.No.4-3-39/G, Bojjavari Thota,
Pithapuram, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Rep. by its Registrar, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India, 31-31-21, Saibaba Street, Narayana
Bhavanam, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
2. Recovery OfficerII, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam.
3. Central Bank of India, Rep. by its Senior Manager, Kakinada Branch,
Kakinada District.
4. M/s The Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
5. M/s Siddhartha Infratech and Services, Near Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan,
Road No.84, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033, Rep. by its Managing
Partner, Bandaru Narasimharao S/ o Panduranga Rao.
...RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following Order:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao) This writ petition filed by Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Staff and Workers Union, Pithapuram, Kakinada District seeking the following relief: 2
"may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records pertaining to the orders passed by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Visakhapatnam, in I.A.No.20 of 2022 in R.P.No.14 of 2009 in O.A.No.9 of 2006 and quash the same after declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violation of the attachment orders passed by the Court of XII Addl. District Judge, Pithapuram, in E.P.No.1 of 2019 in I.D.No.58 of 2006 and also violation of orders passed by this Hon'ble Court on 25/02/2022 in W.P.No.19320 of 2019 and violation of the settled principles of law and consequently set aside the auction sale held on 14.06.2018 in RP 14/2009 IN O.A.No.9/2006 by the Recovery Officer II DRT Visakapatanam and direct the Respondents to release the amounts to the petitioner as awarded by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.58 of 2006 dated 13.09.2017".
2. When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar and learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana representing Sri V. Nithesh, learned counsel for the 5 th respondent informed to this Court that there was an out of Court settlement between the writ petitioner and 5th respondent and they entered into a written compromise dated 24.04.2023 and therefore in terms of the said Memo of compromise agreement dated 24.04.2023, the writ petition may be dismissed.
3. It is informed by both learned counsel that, unconnected with the other related writ petitions, the writ petitioner and 5th respondent herein have 3 entered into the aforesaid Memo of compromise agreement as per which, the 5th respondent herein who is the auction purchaser has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.9,60,00,000/- to the petitioner who are workers of the 4th respondent- Sugar Mills Limited, over and above the auction amount which has been deposited by the 5th respondent with the Recovery Officer- II/2nd respondent.
4. It is submitted that as per the terms of the agreement, the writ petitioner has already received Rs.4,80,00,000/- and for the balance amount of Rs.4,80,00,000/- post dated cheques are issued to them.
5. It is further submitted that, irrespective of the result of other connected writ petitions, the 5th respondent will not seek for refund of the amount of Rs.9,60,00,000/- either from writ petitioner herein or from others. So submitting, both learned counsel requested to record the terms of compromise and dismiss the writ petition.
6. We have perused the terms of the compromise and also enquired learned counsel for the review petitioner, Sri Challa Dhanunjaya and Sri Ch. Shiva Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.17244 of 2022. Both of them reported no objection for recording the compromise. 4
7. In that view, in terms of the Memo of compromise agreement vide I.A.No.3 of 2023 dated 24.04.2023, this Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J ______________ V. SUJATHA, J 09.02.2024 PGT 5 88 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Writ Petition No.17244 of 2022 09.02.2024 PGT