9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned order. The impugned endorsement is a non speaking order and therefore, the petitioner being constrained to approach this Court would require the petitions to be allowed. Therefore the impugned order is quashed. - fresh orders to be passed - Decided in favour of petitioner - WRIT PETITION NOs. 6310-6321/2016 (T-RES) - - - Dated:- 17-2-2016 - MR. ANAND BYRAREDDY J. For the Appellant: Shrimathi Vani, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri S.V.Giri Kumar, Advocate ORDER The learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondents. 2. The petitions coming on for preliminary hearing are considered for final disposal. 3. The petitioner is said to be a manufacturer of cashew kernels and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner has initiated criminal proceedings f or an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 4. In the meanwhile, M/s S M Minerals has demanded furnishing of Form H declarations, but, the petitioner was advised not to furnish the declarations in order to pressurize M/s S M Minerals to repay the pending amounts. Therefore, M/s S M Minerals filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction against the petitioner to supply Form H declaration, which was dismissed on the ground that the parties should have their dispute adjudicated under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, since the agreement provide d for such arbitration. Thereafter, M/s S M Minerals issued a notice invoking the arbitrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner is before this Court. 6. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the impugned order is an appealable order and hence, the present petitions are misconceived, however, the endorsement issued merely claiming that the petitioner is not entitled to such Form H declarations when there is no legal presumption, it is incumbent on the first respondent to explain himself and pass a reasoned order. 7. The impugned endorsement is a non speaking order and therefore, the petitioner being constrained to approach this Court would require the petitions to be allowed. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 22.12.2015, at Annexure-K, is quashed. The first respondent is directed to pass a reasoned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
