Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court reserved verdict in an interim application filed by the state seeking suspension of a protection granted in the year 2008 by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) in favour of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (IDPL), which continues to bar resumption of nearly 898 acres of land in Balapur mandal.
The dispute arose from proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, under which IDPL was declared a sick industrial company and referred to the BIFR to determine whether revival was feasible or closure was warranted. Appearing for the state, Advocate-General Sudarshan Reddy argued that the BIFR, having concluded that revival was not viable, by order dated February 6, 2008, directed the collector to withdraw land resumption proceedings and refrain from taking coercive steps affecting the land belonging to the company pending any rehabilitation decision. He argued that the protection had outlived its statutory life and no longer survived in law. The A-G contended that IDPL was no longer operational and that the land, originally allotted for manufacture of life-saving drugs, had lost its underlying purpose. The land, admeasuring about 898 acres in Balapur mandal and located in prime areas, was alleged to be facing encroachments. It was contended that continuance of the BIFR order was preventing the state from undertaking necessary protective and recovery measures.
Suspension of the 2008 order, insofar as it directed withdrawal of resumption proceedings, was therefore sought. Opposing the plea, counsel for the respondents, argued that no meaningful steps were taken towards rehabilitation between 2008 and 2016 despite sufficient opportunity. She argued that the Central government had convened board meetings in this regard, as reflected in the counter affidavit and that the BIFR order expressly restrained coercive action. It was contended that subsequent attempts by the state to transfer portions of the land were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration. After hearing both sides, the court reserved orders on the question of interim suspension of the 2008 protection.
Advocate challenges fee for resumption of practice
Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court asked the Bar Council of Telangana to justify the legal basis for imposing resumption fees on advocates seeking to restart their practice. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by K. Sree Hareesh Kumar against the Bar Council of Telangana and the Bar Council of India challenging a resolution of April 2024 and corresponding rules which prescribed payment of `10,000 and `5,000 respectively for resumption of practice.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned levy was arbitrary, lacked authority of law, and was in violation of the Constitution of India. It was contended that any fee imposed under Section 18 of the Advocates Act must strictly conform to the statutory rules and could not be enhanced beyond what was legally permissible. Reliance was placed on various judgments of the Supreme Court in support of the challenge. Counsel appearing for the respondent authorities submitted that the petitioner was enrolled as an advocate in 1992, discontinued practice for a considerable period, and was now seeking to resume practice, for which the prescribed fee structure would apply. After hearing the submissions, Justice Tukaramji directed the respondents to file their response in the matter.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
