N. Santhosh Kumar

Page No.1 of total 9 pages Judgment in SC.No.244 of 2022 dt.12.01.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING THE

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-V ADDL. SESSIONS

JUDGE, KHAMMAM

Thursday, this the 12th day of January, 2023

Present: N.SANTOSH KUMAR, Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum- III

Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam.

FAC. Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum-V Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam.

Sessions Case No. 244 of 2022

1.Complainant:The State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Sathupalli Rural.

2.Name of the Accused:Borra Nageswar Rao, S/o.Krishnaiah, 30 yrs., Gowda, Private Employee, R/o.VM Banjar (V) of Penuballi Mandal.

3.Crime Number:200 of 2021 of P.S. V.M.Banjara.

4.P.R.C.Number:01/2022

5.Name of the Officer who::Smt. Shaik Ayesha Sareen, committed the case.

4.Prosecution conducted by:Addl. Public Prosecutor, Khammam

5.Defence conducted by:Sri Bhukya Ramesh, Advocate for the Accused

6.Charges :U/ss. 417, 376, 427 and 506 of IPC

7.Plea of the Accused person:“Pleaded not guilty”

8.Finding of the Court:“Found not guilty”

9.Result : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the charges under Sections 417, 376, 427 and 506 of IPC and accordingly, the Accused is acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bond of the

Page No.2 of total 9 pages Judgment in SC.No.244 of 2022 dt.12.01.2023

Accused shall be in force for a period of SIX months as contemplated under Section 437 Cr.P.C.,

This Special Sessions case came before me on 09.01.2023 for final hearing, after hearing the arguments of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Counsel for the Accused; upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Circle Inspector of Police, Sathupalli Rural filed the charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.200/2021 of P.S., V.M.Banjara for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376, 427 and 506 IPC.

2. The brief case of the Prosecution as disclosed from the charge sheet is that:

i) The complainant-cum-victim aged about 34 years, is a widow, her husband was died about 7 years ago, at present she is staying at her parents’ house at

Mandalapadu village along with P.W.2 (mother of P.W.1) and eking out her livelihood by doing coolie work. The Accused introduced with P.W.1 about five years ago. He made to believe P.W.1 that she has no husband and he had no wife, as such, they can live together. Believing the Accused, P.W.1 moved closely with the Accused and living with him. The Accused making phone calls chit chatting, sending messages and whats app calls to P.W.1 through his Mobile Phone Nos.9603993013, 6302294908 to her Mobile

No.9553604259. Later, the Accused went to the house of P.W.1 in the absence of her family members, participated with her in sexual intercourse by saying deceitful words and sometimes took her outside.

Page No.3 of total 9 pages Judgment in SC.No.244 of 2022 dt.12.01.2023

(ii). It is the further case of the prosecution that taking advantage of her loneliness, the Accused asked P.W.1 for money and took an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from her and gave back the same. Again the Accused took an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from P.W.1. When P.W.1 asked for repayment of the same, the Accused asked P.W.1 about the proof. Further the Accused cheated her by telling that he was going to marry her. When he married another girl about three years ago, the Accused stated that he would take good care of her too, so, she believed him. The Accused has been torturing

P.W.1 mentally and physically ever since he got married.

2(iii). It is the further case of the Prosecution that on 28.06.2021 at about 10.00 p.m. the Accused went to P.W.1, took her to village tank of

Seethasagar at the outskirts of Ramachanderrao Banjar (V) for chit-chating, forcibly committed rape on her, took her mobile phone and threw into village tank, left there by leaving her. Due to fear of the Accused, P.W.1 did not reveal the same to any one. Two months prior to lodging the report, the

Accused went to the house of P.W.1, threatened her in the presence of P.W.2, not to reveal their affair to any one.

2(iv). It is the further case of the Prosecution that on one day when

P.W.1 present near the Post Office, the Accused came to her, threatened in the same manner in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4. When P.W.1 asked the

Accused for return of money, the Accused blackmailed her that he would tell their affair to her son-in-law and also threatened her over phone. On 30.07.2021 at about 10.00 hours again the Accused contacted P.W.1 over phone, threatened her that if she file a police case against him, he will tell

Page No.4 of total 9 pages Judgment in SC.No.244 of 2022 dt.12.01.2023 their affair to her son-in-law. Due to fear of the Accused, P.W.1 could not report the matter at Police Station immediately.

2 (v) After conclusion of entire investigation, the Circle Inspector of

Police, Sathupalli Rural laid charge sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376, 427 and 506 IPC.

3.Cognizance was taken under Sections 417, 376, 427 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code against the Accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Sathupalli and numbered as P.R.C.No.01 of 2022.

4. On appearance of the Accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Sathupalli had furnished with copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents to him under Section 207 of Cr. P.C. Since the offence under Section 376 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Prl. District

Court, Khammam, had committed the case to the Hon’ble Prl. Sessions Court,

Khammam under Section 209 (a) of Cr.P.C.

5. Later, the Hon’ble Prl. Sessions Judge, Khammam has taken the case on file as S.C.No.244 of 2022 and made over the same to this court for disposal according to Law. On appearance of the Accused before this court, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel were heard under Section 226 of Cr.P.C. and considering the material on record, as per

Section 228 of Cr. P.C, charges under Sections 417, 376, 427 and 506 of IPC against the Accused were framed, read over, and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

Page No.5 of total 9 pages Judgment in SC.No.244 of 2022 dt.12.01.2023

6.During the trial, the Prosecution has examined P.Ws-1 to 4 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were exhibited.

7. Since there is no incriminating evidence against the Accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of the Accused under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

8.Heard the Arguments and perused the material on record.

9.Now the point that would arise for determination before this Court, is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved its case and established the guilt of Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. In order prove the charges u/Secs.417, 376, 427 and 506 of the Indian

Penal Code, the Prosecution has to prove that prior to 09.10.2021, the

Accused made to believe P.W.1 that he would marry her, as he has no wife and also P.W.1 has no husband and by saying deceitful words, the accused had sexual intercourse with her at her house for several times and also took her to outside. On 28.06.2021 at about 2200 hours, the Accused took P.W.1 to village tank of Ramachanderrao Banjar for chit-chatting, there, he committed rape on P.W.1 forcibly and also threw her cell phone in the village tank. Further, he took an amount of Rs.3 lakhs from P.W.1 and when P.W.1 asked the said amount, the Accused threatened her that he would tell their affair to her son-in-law and that on 30.07.2021 Accused made a phone call to

P.W.1 threatened her that if she file a police case against him, he would tell their affair to her son-in-law, as such, she could not report the same to the

Police immediately.

Page No.6 of total 9 pages Judgment in SC.No.244 of 2022 dt.12.01.2023

11. P.W.1 is the victim ( whose name is not disclosed in view of bar under section 228-A IPC) deposed that she does not know the Accused and he never cheated , never committed rape against her and never threatened her at any time and that she never lodged any report at the Police Station, VM

Banjara concerning this case. According to P.W.1, about two years ago, at request of Police, VM Banjara, she signed on white blank paper under Ex.P.1, but she does not know the contents of said original report dated 09.10.2021 and the Police did not examine and record her statement. She further deposed that about two years ago at the instance of the Police, V.M.Banjara, she gave some statement before the Magistrate, Madhira, but at present, she does not remember the contents of the said statement. On confrontation of Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by the Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Madhira, she admitted her signature only on her

statement, but denied the contents of said statement. Hence, her signature portion on the said 164 Cr.P.C. statement dated 27.11.2021 was marked as

Ex.P.2.

12.P.W.2 is mother of the victim (whose name is not disclosed in view of

Bar under section 228-A of the IPC), P.Ws.3 and 4 who know about the affair between P.W.1 and the Accused, in one voice deposed that they does not know the Accused; and that the Accused never cheated P.W.1, never committed rape against P.W.1 and that P.W.1 never lodged any report at P.S.

V.M. Banjara against the Accused at any time concerning this case. Thus,

P.Ws.1 to 4 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Though

P.Ws.1 to 4 have been cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor,

Page No.7 of total 9 pages Judgment in SC.No.244 of 2022 dt.12.01.2023 nothing in favour of Prosecution has been elicited.

13. According to the Prosecution case, prior to 09.10.2021 taking advantage of loneliness of P.W.1, the Accused made to believe her that he would marry her and by telling deceitful words, the Accused had sexual intercourse with her for several times and also took an amount of Rs.3 lakhs from her, but failed to return the same and that when she asked the Accused about return of money, the Accused threatened her that if she asked about that money, he would tell their affair between them to her son-in-law. But coming to the evidence, P.W.1 being the defacto complainant-cum-victim,

P.W.2 being the mother of P.W.1 did not state anything against the Accused and that P.Ws.3 and 4 being eye witnesses, who saw both P.W.1 and the

Accused, when they are disputing about the loan amount and their affair between them, did not state about the happening of any incident as projected by the Prosecution. Therefore, the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 4 did not help the Prosecution case in any way to bring home the guilt of the

Accused for the charges made against him. Since there is no incriminating evidence against the Accused to bring home the guilt of Accused for the charges framed against him, the Accused is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, the Accused is to be acquitted. Accordingly, the Point is answered against the Prosecution.

14.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the charges under

Sections 417, 376, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, the

Accused is acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The

Page No.8 of total 9 pages Judgment in SC.No.244 of 2022 dt.12.01.2023 bail bond of the Accused shall be in force for a period of SIX months as contemplated under Section 437 Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of January, 2023.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING THE CASES

RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-V ADDL.

SESSIONS JUDGE,KHAMMAM

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

P.W-1:Victim woman ( whose name is not disclosed in view of bar under section 228-A IPC),

P.W-2: Mother of the victim woman ( whose name is not disclosed in view of bar under section 228-A IPC),

P.W-3:Sri Oruganti Satyanarayana, ( Eye witness with regard to the loan amount between the P.W.1 and the Accused).

P.W.4:Sri Oruganti Ramu ( Eye witness with regard to the loan amount between the P.W.1 and the Accused).

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-None-

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1:Signature of P.W.1 on the original report dated 09.10.2021,

Ex.P-2:Signature portion of P.W.1 on her 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by the Addl. JMFC, Madhira dated 27.11.2021,

Ex.P-3:Statement of P.W.1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., recorded by the Police underSection161ofCr.P.C.,dated 09.10.2021

Ex.P-4:Sec.164 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1 recorded by the Addl. JMFC, Madhira, dated 27.11.2021,

Page No.9 of total 9 pages Judgment in SC.No.244 of 2022 dt.12.01.2023

Ex.P.5:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 recorded by the police dated 10.10.2021,

Ex.P.6:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 recorded by the police dated 10.10.2021,

Ex.P.7:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 recorded by the police dated 10.10.2021,

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

-Nil-

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING

THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST

WOMEN-CUM-V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

Corrections carried out by:

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING

THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-V ADDL.

SESSIONS JUDGE, KHAMMAM

Tuesday, this the 31st day of January, 2023

Present: N.SANTOSH KUMAR, Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam. FAC. Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum-V Addl.

Sessions Judge, Khammam.

ARB E.P.No.290 of 2021

in

A.C.P. (TVS) No.4948 of 2018

BETWEEN: M/s.TVS Credit Services Limited represented by its Manager Legal, B.Laxman Singh, S/o.Ganesh Singh, Age:38 years, Occu:Manager, R/o.Karimnagar, O/o.Jaya Lakshmi Estates, N.No.29, (O.No.8), Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. ...…Decree Holder/Claimant.

And

Houde Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o.Shiva Shankar, Age:Adult, Occu:Government Employee in T.S.N.P.D.C.L., Sub-Station, Errupalem, Khammam District. ....Judgment Debtor/Respondent.

This Execution Petition is coming before me for final hearing on 18.01.2023 in the presence of Sri A.V.Ramanuja Charyulu, Counsel for the Decree Holder/Claimant; and Sri V.Rama Krishna, Counsel for the J.Dr./Respondent ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is an Execution Petition filed by the Decree Holder/Claimant under Order 21 Rule 48 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908, praying

Page No.2 of 8 total pagesOrder in Arb. E.P.No.290 of 2021 Dt.31.01.2023.

this court to attach the salary of the Respondent/Judgment Debtor, directing the Disbursing Officer of the J.Dr. to remit the salary amounts and credit the same to this Execution Petition till the realization of the E.P.

amount.

2.Initially, this Execution Petition was filed before the Court of the

Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Khammam and the same was

numbered as Arb.E.P.No.290 of 2021 and thereafter, this Execution

Petition was made over to this court for disposal, according to the Law.

3. The brief case of the Decree-holder is that the Decree Holder filed the A.C.P. (TVS) No.4948 of 2018 before the Arbitrator against the J.Dr. for the settlement of its claim. The sole arbitrator passed an Award directing the J.Dr. to pay an amount of Rs.4,99,527=00 together with costs and interest to the Decree Holder. But the J.Dr. eventhough having sufficient means to pay the award amount, he did not turn up and failed to pay the said Award amount. Hence, prayed to order for attachment of salary of

J.Dr. for recovery of the Award amount and the Execution Petition amount may be ordered to the Decree Holder together with future interest and costs. As per the instructions of the Arbitrator, the Decree Holder sent the copy of the Award of the Arbitrator, to the J.Dr. through registered post with acknowledgment due and the said postal acknowledgment cover of

Page No.3 of 8 total pagesOrder in Arb. E.P.No.290 of 2021 Dt.31.01.2023.

J.Dr. containing the Award, not returned to the Decree-Holder, and the

Decree-Holder under the presumption that the Award was served on the

J.Dr.

4.After service of notice, the Judgment Debtor failed to make his appearance before this court, therefore, the Judgment Debtor was set exparte and consequently, on petition in E.A.No.2/2022 filed by the

Judgment Debtor, the exparte order against the J.Dr. was set aside and the J.Dr. submitted Counter.

5 (i).The Judgment Debtor filed counter opposing the Execution petition contending that the entire allegations in the Petition are all false and baseless and invented only in this Execution Petition. He never received the Award copy from the D.Hr., or the Arbitrator, hence, the Award passed by the Sole Arbitrator is not maintainable.

5(ii).It is further submitted by the J.Dr. that he has been suffering with

Left Proximal Ureteric Calculi with moderate HTN and as per the advice of the Doctors, he had underwent surgery and using medicines regularly, his wife has been also suffering with Uterus infection and recently she had surgery of uterus removal. He is having large family, un-married daughter, all are depending on his earnings.

Page No.4 of 8 total pagesOrder in Arb. E.P.No.290 of 2021 Dt.31.01.2023.

5(iii). It is further submitted by the J.Dr. that he paid an amount of

Rs.50,000/- to the D.Hr., in the year, 2019, but the D.Hr. company did not issue any receipt intentionally and did not adjust to the Execution Petition and the D.Hr. showed wrong calculations, as such, the E.P. claim is very excessive and the rate of interest is also exorbitant and the Decree Holder has no cause of action to file the Execution Petition and the same is invented for the purpose of this Execution Petition.

5(iv). It is further contended that this Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Petition and the E.P. is barred by limitation and prayed to dismiss the petition against the J.Dr. with exemplary costs.

6.Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the Decree holder and the J.Dr. Perused the record.

7. Basing on the contentions of both parties, now the point that would arise for consideration before this court is that:

“Whether there are valid grounds to attach the salary of the

J.Dr. as prayed for?”

POINT:

8.As seen from the Arbitration Award passed by the learned

Arbitrator, the learned Arbitrator passed an Award in favour of the Decree

Holder, directing the J.Dr to pay the principal amount of Rs.4,99,527=00

Page No.5 of 8 total pagesOrder in Arb. E.P.No.290 of 2021 Dt.31.01.2023.

( Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety nine thousands Five hundred and Twenty seven only ) together with interest and costs and accordingly, the Decree-Holder filed this present Execution petition. Though the J.Dr. in his counter alleged that the Award is not maintainable, but this court being an execution court cannot go beyond the award passed by the learned

Arbitrator. However, the grievance of the J.Dr. if any, has to be seen in the

Award itself.

9.As seen from the contents of the execution petition, the learned

Arbitrator after conducting due enquiry passed an Award as stated above and in these circumstances, this court being an execution court has to execute the decree as per the modes of the execution, as contemplated under the Law.

10.It is another contention of the J.Dr. that he never received any copy of the Award copy from the D.Hr. or any Arbitrator, hence, the award passed by the Arbitrator is not maintainable. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the Decree Holder sent the copy of the Award of the

Arbitrator to the J.Dr., through Registered post and Acknowledgment, hence, the contention of the J.Dr. with regard to sending of the Award copy of the Arbitrator to the J.Dr., is not believable and that as per the

Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, the liability of the J.Dr. is proved.

Page No.6 of 8 total pagesOrder in Arb. E.P.No.290 of 2021 Dt.31.01.2023.

Therefore, the Decree Holder is at liberty to enforce the Award by way of execution against against the J.Dr.

11.It is further contended by the J.Dr. that he paid an amount of

Rs.50,000/- to the D.Hr., but the D.Hr., did not issue any receipt to that effect, shown wrong calculations. To disprove the same, the J.Dr. did not file any proof for payment of the said amount and of wrong calculations, hence, the J.Dr. paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- and made wrong calculations by the D.Hr. cannot be believable.

12.The Judgment Debtor in his counter further alleged that the signed copy of Award was not delivered to him, hence there is non-compliance of provisions of Section 31 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. As seen from the record, the Decree Holder also enclosed the letter issued by the

Arbitrator to the Respondent with regard to sending of Award copy showing the proof of sending of copy of Award. Therefore, the contention of Judgment Debtor that there is non-compliance of Sec.31 (5) of the Act, cannot be considered.

13.In view of the above said legal position, now the Decree-Holder opted to attach the salary of the J.Dr. and to pay the same to the Decree

Holder. In view of the above said discussion, I hold that once the

Arbitration Award has been passed after conducting due enquiry, this

Page No.7 of 8 total pagesOrder in Arb. E.P.No.290 of 2021 Dt.31.01.2023.

court being an Execution Court, has no other option except to execute the decree, as contemplated under the Law. Therefore, the contention of the

J.Dr. is that this court has no jurisdiction and that the Arbitration Award is not proper, cannot be considered at this stage. Therefore, it is a fit case to issue salary attachment warrant against J.Dr. as prayed for. Accordingly, the Point is answered in favour of the Decree-Holder.

14.In the result, Issue salary attachment warrant against the J.Dr.

under Order 21 Rule 48 of the Code of the Civil Procedure for recovery of

Rs.8,13,403-00 ( Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirteen Thousands Four hundred and

Three only) by following the provisions of Section 60 of the Civil Procedure

Code, on deposit of process.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.I), corrected and

pronounced by me in the Court on this the 31st day of January, 2023.

Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam. FAC. Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum-V Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam.

Corrections carried out by:

Page No.8 of 8 total pagesOrder in Arb. E.P.No.290 of 2021 Dt.31.01.2023.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

- NIL -

Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam. FAC. Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum-V Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam. Corrections carried out by:

Page No.9 of 8 total pagesOrder in Arb. E.P.No.290 of 2021 Dt.31.01.2023.

Corrections carried out by:

Page No.10 of 8 total pagesOrder in Arb. E.P.No.290 of 2021 Dt.31.01.2023. Page No.11 of 8 total pagesOrder in Arb. E.P.No.290 of 2021 Dt.31.01.2023.

TSKH010008582019

Presented on : 01-10-2019 Registered on : 01-10-2019 Decided on : 10-01-2023 Duration : 3 years, 3 months, 9 days

IN THE COURT OF

Court of Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against Women cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam AT KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM Presided Over by SRI DEVINENI RAM PRASADA RAO

EP/418/2019

Exhibit No.: :M/s. Shriram City Union finance Ltd. rep by its GPA Mr.V.Ravi Sankar Age: 0 Occupation : Address: M/s. Shriram City Union finance Ltd. rep by its GPA Mr.V.Ravi Sankar

VERSUS : G. Usha Rani Age: 0 Occupation : Address: R/o.h.No. Flat No.105, Bommarillu Apartments, Vijaya rama nagar colony, Indira Nagar, Opp. Mineral water plant, khammam, khammam dist 2:G. Prakash Age: 0 Occupation :

3:G.V. Gopala Krishna Age: 0 Occupation :

4:G.Avinsah Age: 0 Occupation :

5:G.Shyam Chowdary Age: 0 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : GADE HARENDER REDDY Advocate for : appearing for G. Usha Rani: Advocate , appearing for 2,3,4, 5 respectively.

ORDER

The Decree holder through the counsel for Dhr filed a Memo not pressing the E.P against Jdr No.2 with a liberty to preserve his right to proceed against all the Jdrs in this Arbitration Case No. 160/2015. Therefore, the E.P is dismissed as not pressed.

Date : 10-01-2023 (SRI DEVINENI RAM PRASADA RAO)

Court of Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against Women cum V Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Khammam

KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(SRI DEVINENI RAM PRASADA RAO)

Court of Special Sessions Judge for fast

tracking the cases relating to atrocities against

Women cum V Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Khammam

KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM

TSKH010000292021

Presented on : 18-01-2021 Registered on : 18-01-2021 Decided on : 23-01-2023 Duration : 2 years, 0 months, 5 days

IN THE COURT OF

Court of Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against Women cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam AT KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM Presided Over by SRI DEVINENI RAM PRASADA RAO

ARBEP/25/2021

Exhibit No.:

: M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. rep by its GPA G Amarnath Age: 0 Occupation : Address: M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. rep by its GPA G Amarnath

VERSUS : Seelam Rama Krishna Reddy Age: 0 Occupation : Address: R/o.H.No. 6-32, Raghunadha gudem, chandupatla, kalluru mandla, khammam dist 2:Sadam Krishna Age: 0 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Kona Chandra Sekhar Advocate for : appearing for Seelam Rama Krishna Reddy: Advocate appearing for 2 respectively.

ORDER

Decree holder failed to file the TP charges inspite of issuing conditional order. This shows that Dhr is not evincing any interest to prosecute the case. Therefore the EP is dismissed for default.

Date : 23-01-2023 (SRI DEVINENI RAM PRASADA RAO)

Court of Special Sessions Judge for fast

tracking the cases relating to atrocities against

Women cum V Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Khammam

KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

SRI DEVINENI RAM PRASADA RAO)

Court of Special Sessions Judge for fast

tracking the cases relating to atrocities against

Women cum V Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Khammam

KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM

IN THE COURT OF VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, at

Sathupally

Presided Over by N.Santosh Kumar

ARBEP/168/2022

Shriram City Union Finance Co. Ltd.,Madhira Branch ,Rep.by its GPA holder K.Srinivasulu. VERSUS

1. Darla Manoj Kumar, Age: 42 Years, Occ. M/SDaral Govind and sons, R/o.H.No. 1-203, Wyra Road, Madhira, Khammam J. Dr. No.1 present address R/o.H.No.1-815/3, Flat NO.301, Sai Brundavanam apartment, Sundaraya Nagar, Madhira, Khammam

2. Darla Swetha Chandra ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : GADE HARENDER REDDY Advocate for : appearing for Darla Manoj Kumar: Advocate appearing for 2 respectively.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 03-02-2023 )

ORDER

The decree holder through its counsel filed a memo stating that the decree holder is not pressing the E.P by preserving its right to proceed against all the J.Drs. and the same is recorded by the court. Therefore, the E.P is dismissed as not pressed.

Date : 03-02-2023 (N.Santosh Kumar)

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sathupally.

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS