TIYYAGURA PRABHAKAR REDDY v. ANIL KUMAR SINGHAL
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 Jul 2025
- Bench
- RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Provisions considered
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ss. 10, 12
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4223/2024 Between:
1. TIYYAGURA PRABHAKAR REDDY, S/O BHASKAR REDDY, R/O FLAT NO. HOUSING BOARD COLONY, 401, SREE ENCLAVE APARTMENT, NALLAPADU ROAD, GUNTUR-522005 ...PETITIONER AND
ANIL KUMAR SINGHAL ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. IAS, REPRESENTED BY
PEEYUSH KUMAR IAS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING AP SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT CT IS AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 19 12 20124 VIDE I A NO 1 OF 2024 IN C C NO 4223 OF 2024
HARI NARAYANA M IAS, THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, ANDHRA PRADESH AT PRIME HILL CREST VADDESWARAM, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
ALEEMBASHA SK, THE MANGALAGIRI -TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to summon, prosecute and punish the respondent U/S 10 to 12 of the contempt of Court Act for willful and deliberate violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 18-06-2024 in W.P.No.10582 of 2024 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the cause title in the Contempt Petition by removing the words “The State of Andhra Pradesh” in the cause title of 1st and 2nd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KODE RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. NAGARAJU PULLAGURA
2. SOMA RAJU YELISETTI
3. J DILEEP KUMAR The Court made the following order: In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the orders disobedience of which is complained of in this contempt case has been complied with, the contempt case is liable to be closed. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. BRS ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — ss. 10, 12; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 10 Jul 2025. The bench was RAVI CHEEMALAPATI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.