Mamidanna Sivaramachandra Rao vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Developemtn ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3576 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mamidanna Sivaramachandra Rao vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Developemtn ... on 18 August, 2025

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
                     AND
           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE
            SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

                 C.M.S.A Nos.33 & 47 OF 2008

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. S.Balchand, learned counsel for the appellants

and Mr. M. Krishna Prasad, learned counsel representing

Mr. P.V.Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

Perused the record.

2. These are two civil miscellaneous second appeals filed by

the same appellants raising the question of law.

3. The challenge in CMSA No.33 of 2008 was to the

proceedings drawn and the order passed by the learned Chief

Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in I.P.A No.1 of 2007

and I.A.No.172 of 2006 in I.P.A No.68 of 2005 and the challenge

in CMSA No.47 of 2008 was to the order and judgment dated

16.02.2006 in I.P.A No.8 of 2005, confirming the order dated

23.09.2005 in I.P. No.68 of 2005 of the Insolvency Court

(Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad) is concerned.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

appellants subsequently have resorted to an insolvency

proceedings against respondent Nos.4 and 5 which stood allowed.

The discharge petition also stood completed thereafter and as such,

there would not be any claim left so far as respondent Nos.2 to 5

are concerned. So far as respondent No.1/Andhra Pradesh

Industrial Development Corporation Limited is concerned, there

was another writ petition which was filed i.e., W.P.No.9055 of

2019 challenging the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 on

the ground of limitation. The said writ petition finally stood

allowed vide order dated 06.03.2023 holding that the proceeding

was barred by limitation and as such no further proceedings could

be initiated by respondent No.1 and whatever proceedings those

which were initiated already stood barred by limitation.

5. In the aforesaid factual backdrop and the developments that

have transpired subsequent to the filing of these CMSAs, the

learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that nothing

further remains to be adjudicated in these CMSAs and the same be

accordingly disposed of.

6. Mr. M.Krishna Prasad, learned counsel representing

Mr. P.V.Ravindra Kumar, enters appearance for respondent No.1

and does not dispute the factual aspects as narrated by the learned

counsel for the appellants and also so far as the judgment rendered

in W.P.No.9055 of 2019 is concerned.

7. In view of the same, both these appeals stand disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

_________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J 18.08.2025 Lrkm/Adt