The Andhra Pradesh State Handloom ... vs The Rangapuram Handlooms
2021 Latest Caselaw 2732 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          &
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA


         I.A.No.1 of 2021 in WRIT APPEAL No.323 of 2021
                                    and
                    WRIT APPEAL No.323 of 2021
                   (Taken up through video conferencing)

The Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers
Co-operative Society Ltd., (APCO), D.No.29-11-9/1,
APCO Bhavan, Near Rehman Park,
Vijayawada, Krishna District,
Rep. by its V.C. & Managing Director and another.
                                                        .. Appellants
       Versus

The Rangapuram Handlooms Weavers Co-operative
Production and Sales Society Ltd., Rangapuram,
Appanapalli, Khajipet Mandal, YSR District,
Rep. by Bandi Muralikrishna S/o. Bandi Hanumanthu
and another.
                                                        .. Respondents.

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, Spl. Govt. Pleader

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt: 30.07.2021

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Special Government

Pleader appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri,

learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner.

2. I.A.No.1 of 2021 is an application filed for condonation of delay of

304 days in filing the connected appeal against the common order dated

17.10.2019 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.3376 and 3378

of 2019 insofar as it relates to W.P.No.3378 of 2019.

                                        2                                        HCJ & NJS,J
                                                          IA.No.1/2021 in WA.No.323/2021 &
                                                                           WA.No.323/2021

3. The writ appeal along with the delay condonation application came

to be filed on 17.06.2021.

4. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner filed counter-affidavit contesting

I.A.No.1 of 2021.

5. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge had directed

the 1st appellant-Society (2nd respondent therein) to pay a sum of

Rs.4,80,90,721/- to the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, deducting the

payments made, if any, along with simple interest at the rate of 8% per

annum from the date of invoices till the date of actual payment.

6. To explain the delay in preferring the appeal, Mr. Kasa Jaganmohan

Reddy has drawn our attention to paragraph Nos.7 and 9 of the affidavit

in support of I.A.No.1 of 2021. In the said paragraphs, it is stated as

under:

"7. I submit that the learned single Judge allowed

the writ petition by judgment dt.17.10.2019 directing the 1st

petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,80,90,721/- to the Petitioner

after deducting the payments made, along with interest. The

petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.1,85,00,000.00

during the pendency of writ petition towards the principal

amount which was never disputed nor denied. The petitioner

agreed to receive the principal amount at that time but

surprisingly he filed contempt case in CC No.545 of 2021

alleging disobedience to the Court orders. It is therefore

clear that the respondent society never intended to evade

passing on the amounts received from the consumers to the

credit of the petitioner. The petitioners are aggrieved with

the direction to pay interest towards the invoices raised 3 HCJ & NJS,J IA.No.1/2021 in WA.No.323/2021 & WA.No.323/2021

which is not in terms of the byelaws of the society. As

already stated supra this respondent has not purchased the

cloth from the respondent for profiteering and is endowed to

collectively support the primary members and disbursing the

sale proceeds.

9. I submit that impugned judgement was

rendered by the learned single Judge on 17.10.2019 and the

copy of the judgement was furnished on 05.11.2019. The

appeal ought to have been preferred within 30 days, on or

before 04.12.2019. As mentioned supra the petitioner never

denied to pay the invoices either before filing of the writ

petition or during the writ petition. As already stated the

cloth supplied by the petitioners was sold to the State

Departments on behalf of the respondent and a huge sum of

money was held up by the TSCO and Government of A.P.

The petitioner was not in a position to pay the principal

amount to show its bonafides. The pandemic further crippled

the financial position of the petitioner society. I took charge

of the office on 03.06.2020 and after assuming the charge of

the office I caused to pay the principal amount of

Rs.1,50,00,000.00 as per the invoices. The period of during

25.03.2020 to 15.03.2021 was pandemic period. Hence

there is a delay of 304 days in filing this appeal. If the delay

is not condoned the petitioners will suffer irreparably and its

very purpose of incorporation will fail resulting in hardship to

the primary members including the respondent/writ

petitioner."

                                         4                                    HCJ & NJS,J
                                                       IA.No.1/2021 in WA.No.323/2021 &
                                                                        WA.No.323/2021

7. Mr. Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy submits that because the 1st

respondent/writ petitioner had agreed to receive the principal amount, the

appellants did not choose to file an appeal and only when a contempt

case, being Contempt Case No.545 of 2021, was filed by the 1st

respondent/writ petitioner, it was considered necessary to prefer the

appeal. He further submits that Mr. Bandi Hanumanthu, who had

represented the 1st respondent/writ petitioner in the writ petition, was

agreeable to receive the principal amount and as he is no more, his wife,

who is presently representing the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, filed the

counter-affidavit disputing the same.

8. Mr. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri has submitted that contempt petition was

filed on 16.12.2020 by Mr. Bandi Hanumanthu, who died on 15.05.2021,

with prior notice to the counsel and this fact is not disputed by Mr. Kasa

Jaganmohan Reddy.

9. On a query of the Court as to whether there is any written

document evidencing that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner had agreed

for receiving only the principal amount foregoing the interest amount

granted by the order of the learned single Judge, Mr. Kasa Jaganmohan

Reddy very fairly submits that there is no such document.

10. In the counter-affidavit filed in I.A.No.1 of 2021, it is stated that

the 1st respondent/writ petitioner had never agreed to receive only the

principal amount.

11. It is to be noticed that in the cause-title of I.A.No.1 of 2021, the

1st respondent/writ petitioner-Society is wrongly shown as being

represented by Bandi Muralikrishna. In fact, it was represented by Bandi

Hanumanthu in the writ petition but not by Bandi Muralikrishna.

                                      5                                        HCJ & NJS,J
                                                        IA.No.1/2021 in WA.No.323/2021 &
                                                                         WA.No.323/2021

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as noted above, we

are of the considered opinion that the delay has not been explained. Even

after being aware of the contempt proceedings, the appellants took nearly

6 months to prefer the appeal.

13. In that view of the matter, I.A.No.1 of 2021 is dismissed.

Consequently, the writ appeal also stands dismissed. No costs. Other

pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J IBL