Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S A.P. Electrical Equipment ... vs The Tahsildar on 24 February, 2023
Bench: Surya Kant, J.K. Maheshwari
1
ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.9 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).3794-3795/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-02-2023
in WA No.665/2022 and WA No.670/2022 passed by the High Court for
the State of Telangana at Hyderabad)
M/S A.P. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE TAHSILDAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.37797/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No.37797/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No.40684/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 24-02-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. V Ramesh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Adv.
Mr. Sahil Narang, Adv.
Mr. Aakash Bajaj, Adv.
Mr. Dhritiman Roy, Adv.
Ms. Neha Maniktala, Adv.
Ms. Sania Abbasi, Adv.
Mr. Arcot Chandra Shaker, Adv.
Mr. R Ashwanth, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Sangwan, Adv.
For M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Somanadri Goud Katam, AOR Mr. Sirajuddin, Adv.Signature Not Verified
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following Digitally signed by satish kumar yadav Date: 2023.02.27 16:15:08 IST Reason: O R D E R
1. Heard Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Mr. Raju 2 Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel, who appears on caveat on behalf of the respondents.
2. Issue notice, returnable on 21.04.2023.
3. Mr. Somanadri Goud Katam, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and waives service of formal notice upon the said respondents.
4. Counter affidavit be filed within two weeks.
5. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that pursuant to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the possession of the surplus land has been handed over to the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority.
6. Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on the other hand, states that the petitioner is still in physical possession of the subject land.
7. Taking into consideration the rival submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties, it is directed that both the parties shall maintain status quo regarding further utilisation of the land declared surplus.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)