Hyderabad, July 07: Justice L. Narasimha Reddy of the High Court on Tuesday allowed the civil revision petition filed by the Hyderabad Cricket Association against a civil court injunction barring it from conducting its Annual General Body Meeting or using funds without the prior permission of the court or the general body.
The revision petition was filed against an earlier order of the civil court which had granted the injunction against the HCA on allegations of mismanagement and violation of the laws of the HCA. After the injunction had been granted the HCA moved the civil court and complained that even after issuance of notice was ordered, it was not served on the association and thus the ad interim ex parte order was illegal.
The court accepted the plea and set aside the ex parte order but extended the stay on the conduct of the meeting and use of funds until after the summer vacation. Aggrieved by the said order, the HCA filed the present petition contending that once it was found that the ex parte order was not proper the court erred in extending its non est order. In the meantime the court has heard the main application and has reserved its orders.
On the revision petition Justice Reddy agreed with the contention of the petitioner that the civil court erred in extending the stay orders and set aside the same.
GHMC proceedings against Shivam Road shop stayed
Justice G. Rohini admitted a writ petition challenging the action of the GHMC in effecting the closure of a readymade garments shop on Shivam Road on the ground that it did not have a trade licence.
The petitioner, Abhishek Agarwal, who runs Swastika Dresses, complained that the business of selling readymade garments was not mentioned in the schedule and as such requiring him to procure a trade licence was without the authority of law. He also complained that the authorities sought to stop his business on the ground that the shop was in a residential zone. He said it was common knowledge that the entire road was used for business and picking only his shop amounted to hostile discrimination.
The judge stayed the proceedings of the GHMC.
Notice to authorities on plea against Maytas Properties
Justice G. Rohini ordered issuance of notice on a writ petition complaining that the authorities had failed to take necessary action against Maytas Properties. The petitioner, Guntur Parthasarathy, complained that he had paid Rs 40 lakh to the company for buying a property but no action has been taken by the company since then.. He complained that the company had even changed its registered office without notice to the registrar of companies and his attempts to activate the officials was in vain. He also pointed out that the company had not filed its annual returns which are mandatory and yet the authorities did not take any action against it.
—Agencies