This view of the learned Single Judge was upset by the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal taking the view that it was number open to the learned Single Judge under the guise of a review to modify the sentence and order the appellants release by exonerating him from his liability for flouting the injunction.
The learned Single Judge impressed by the version of the appellant recalled the order of detention and ordered instead attachment of the sum of Rs 75,000, the price which the sold property had fetched, lying with the Vijaya Bank, Secunderabad.
193 of 1993 upsetting the orders of a learned Single Judge, passed in breach of injunction proceedings.
17226 of 1993 learned Single Judge took the view that the appellant had evaded service of the injunction and had indulged in a hide and seek game and, therefore, deserved to be dealt with severely.
He pleaded that he was number aware of the issuance of injunction and that the refusal recorded by the postman on the registered companyered letter sent to him was wrong.
Reflected inherently in the said order was recall of the order of detention since the companyrt effected the said attachment and directed the release of the appellant.
This appeal is directed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in LPA No.
The appellant was thus ordered to be detained in civil prison for three months.
The breach of the injunction was reported to the High Court.
The price fetched was Rs 75,000.
The Arising out of SLP No.
Leave granted.
According to the appellant before he was served with the injunction he had disposed of those properties.
The appellant then showed cause to the learned Single Judge against the action ordered.
We do number agree with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court.
The appellant herein was injuncted by the companyrt for alienating certain properties.
