Mohammed Rashad Qureshi & Anr. v. Axis Papa Homes Villa owner Mutually Aided cooperative
Case at a glance
- Bench
- GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. W./..No.1006 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. \ To SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 ONC CC; tO SRI T. KISTAIAH, AdVOCAIC [OPUC] ONC CC; tO M/S.…
Judgment
Cause title
Petitior under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the order passed by this court in W.P.No.2 193t. of 2025 dt.1 1 tOBt2O2S. lA NO: 2 oF 2,025 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 stay the interim ord'3r dt.11lo1t2025 passed in wp No.21g34 of 2o2s,pending disposal of the main writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI T. KISTAIAH counsel for thr: Respondent No.1:
Ms. JyorHrsRr VANKTNA, REPRESENTTNG M/s. VANKINA, ALLU AND PARTNERS Counsel for the Respondents No.2 to 4: Gp FoR coopERATloN The Court mad.e the following: JUDGMENT *a I AT HYOPNABAD THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR 1006 0F DATE: 13.02.2o126 Between: Mohammed Rashad Qureshi and another And Appellants Axis Papa Homes Villa owner Mutually Aided cooperative Maintenance Society Limited and three others. ...Respondent
Mr. T. Kistaiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Ms. Jyothisri Vankina, learned counsel representing Vankina Allu & Partners for the respondent No.1.
JUDGMENT:
(Per Honble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
The writ Appeal arises out of an interim order dated ll-o8.2o25 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.No.21934 of 2025 filed by the respondent No.1 herein.
The Writ Petition was filed for a Writ of Mandamus against the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, namely, the commissioner for cooperation and Registrar of co-operative Societies and the Registrar and District co-operative officer, ./ \ ,g t 2 J. Mutually Aided Co-operative Societibs, respectively, in considerirrg the complaint of the writ petitioner against the respondent Nos.4 and 5 (the appellants in the writ Appeal) and others under section 37 of rhe Telangana Mutually Aided co- operative Societies Act, 1995.
After hearing learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondent No.llwrit petitioner, it is evident that the impugned orcler is an interim order, by which the learned single Judge has granted interim suspension and made the matter returnablr: on 25.O8.2O25.
We do not find any reason to set aside the impugned interim order since the appellants herein can very well take steps befcrre the learned Single Judge for vacating or modifying the impugped interim order, as the case may be.
W./..No.1006 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. \ To SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 ONC CC; tO SRI T. KISTAIAH, AdVOCAIC [OPUC] ONC CC; tO M/S. VANKINA, ALLU AND PARTNERS, AdVOCAtC TOPUC] Two CCs to GP for Cooperation, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]
4. Two Ctr Copies YS ?n4 I HIGH COURT E 2/ t] 2 T!iE Y 2t t :! ,:l () l! * Gu=ilrl .No.1006 of 2025 DISMNSSING THE WRIT APPEAL ITHOUT COSTS x\ .,le
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.