C. Uma Reddy vs. Kantha Nehra
AI Summary
The Supreme Court has initiated proceedings in a Special Leave Petition challenging a Telangana High Court order, directing all parties to maintain 'status quo' until further orders. This crucial interim directive, coupled with the issuance of notice to respondents including governmental and temple entities, signals the Supreme Court's preliminary engagement with a potentially significant legal dispute.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
C. Uma Reddy filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) in the Supreme Court, challenging a final judgment and order dated December 21, 2023, issued by the High Court for the State of Telangana in CMA No. 411/2013. The respondents include Kantha Nehra, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, and Sri Prassanna Anjaneya Swamy Temple. On April 26, 2024, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar, heard the petition for admission, issued notice to the respondents, and directed all parties to maintain the *status quo* as it existed on that date.
Timeline of Events
CMA No. 411/2013 was filed in the High Court of Telangana.
High Court of Telangana passed final judgment and order in CMA No. 411/2013.
Special Leave Petition (C) was filed in the Supreme Court.
Special Leave Petition (C) was registered in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court heard the SLP for admission, issued notice to respondents, and ordered status quo.
Key Factual Findings
A final judgment and order was passed by the High Court of Telangana on 21-12-2023 in CMA No. 411/2013, which is currently being challenged.
Source: Recited from Petitioner Pleading
Respondent No.1 (Kantha Nehra) has entered a caveat and accepted notice, thus formal notice is not required for this respondent.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner filed the Special Leave Petition, implicitly arguing for the admission of their appeal and seeking interim protection against the High Court's judgment.
Respondent's Arguments
Respondent No. 1's counsel accepted notice by virtue of a caveat, indicating preparedness to participate in the proceedings, but no substantive arguments were recorded at this preliminary stage.
Court's Reasoning
The Court, after hearing counsel, decided to issue notice to all respondents and directed the maintenance of *status quo*. This indicates a prima facie view that the matter warrants detailed consideration and that the existing state of affairs should be preserved to prevent irreparable harm or alteration of the subject matter until further adjudication.
- Emphasis on preserving the existing state of affairs (status quo) pending adjudication
- Adherence to due process through the issuance of notice to all concerned parties
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Issue notice to the respondents.
- 2.Notice be issued to the remaining respondents.
- 3.Objections, if any, be filed in four weeks.
- 4.In the meanwhile, status quo, existing as on today, shall be maintained by the parties.
Precedential Assessment
Non-Binding (Procedural)
This order is procedural, pertaining to the admission of a Special Leave Petition and granting interim relief (status quo). It does not establish new legal principles or interpret statutes, hence it carries no binding precedential value.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
First Hearing
Listed On:
26 Apr 2024
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
COURT NO.5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 9085/2024 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-12-2023 in CMA No. 411/2013 passed by the High Court or the State of Telanganaat Hyderabad)
C. UMA REDDY
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KANTHA NEHRA & ORS.
Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.)
Date: 26-04-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
- For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.B.Suresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mr. Arindam Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Karthik Jayashankar, Adv. Ms. M.B.Ramya, Adv. Mr. Mohd Aman Alam, Adv. Mr. P.B.sashaankh, Adv.
- For Respondent(s) Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, AOR Mr. Sunny Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following ORDER
Issue notice to the respondents.
Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, learned Advocate on Record, entered caveat and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Hence, there is no need to issue formal notice to the said respondent.
Notice be issued to the remaining respondents.
Objections, if any, be filed in four weeks.
In the meanwhile, status quo, existing as on today, shall by maintained by the parties.
(RAJNI MUKHI) COURT MASTER (SH)
(DIPTI KHURANA) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR