Back
K. LAKSHMAN
Keshavarao Cheedella – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sannapaneni Lohit, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 18357 of 2024, Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 17985 and 17993 of 2024, Mr. A. Jagan, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Mr. T.P. Acharya, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (TSCSCL).
2. These writ petitions challenge the initiation of proceedings under the Telangana Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (hereinafter referred to as ‘R.R. Act’). The allegation of the petitioners is that the respondents issued impugned notices without following procedure laid down under the R.R. Act. Therefore, there is no need to delve into the facts of the case in detail.
3. However, brief facts in W.P. No. 18357 of 2024 are as follows:
Recovery proceedings under the Telangana Revenue Recovery Act cannot be initiated without prior determination of the amount due, especially when an arbitration clause exists in the agreement.
Recovery proceedings under the Telangana Revenue Recovery Act cannot be initiated without a prior determination of the amount due, especially when disputes exist and an arbitration clause is present.
(1) Public demand – Term ‘public demand’ is of wide amplitude and encompasses all arrears or dues.(2) Jurisdictional facts consist of a sequence of events or a bundle of circumstances – Relevant circ....
An arbitration agreement exists despite challenges, and an independent arbitrator must be appointed due to conflicts of interest with the originally named arbitrator.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
