Disposed

M/S. Sei Green Flash Pvt. Ltd., Tamilnadu State v. Palem Maheswara Reddy, Kadapa Dist and 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Sept 2024CRP/3372/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court converted an interim order suspending a docket order into an absolute order after confirming condition compliance. The case was disposed of while reserving rights for parties to litigate claims in the lower civil court. No substantive decision on the injunction was rendered.

What did the court decide?

The interim order suspending the docket order was made absolute and the Civil Revision Petition was disposed of.

M/S. Sei Green Flash Pvt. Ltd… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ;: AMARAVATI

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3372 OF 2017

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 03.07.2017 passed in lA No.112 of 2017 in OS No.56 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Atmakur, Nellore District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s.SEI Green Flash Pvt. Ltd., (a Sun Edision Company) Rep. by its Vice President Menon Eternity, 10th Floor, North Wing New # 165, Old #110, St. Mary's Road Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018, Tamilnadu State.

¶10

...PETITIONER/1®^ RESPONDENT/1®^ DEFENDANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Palem Maheswara Reddy, S/o.Sree Rami Reddy, Aged about 49 years. Contractor, Residing at D.No.4-8-267, Mythri Layout, Pulivendula Town & Mandal, Kadapa District. (Petitioner/plaintiff)

¶13

M/s.lM Consultants, Rep. by its CEO, Door No.10, Nagarjuna Nagar Colony, Tarnaka, Secunderabad-500 017, Telangana State.

¶14

M/s.Surya Engineering & Constructions, Rep. by its Proprietor B. Prakash Reddy, F-14, 4th Floor, RK Complex, Opp.Best Price Mangalagiri Road, A.P. State.

¶15

(RR 2 AND 3 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THIS PETITION)

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT NOS.2 AND 3

¶17

LA. NO: 1 OF 2017 rCRPMP. NO: 4441 OF ?ni7)

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances s ated m the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pease suspend the operation of the Docket Order dated 03.07.2017 passed in I.A.No.112 of 2017 in O.S.No. 56 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge at Atmakur, Nellore District pending disposal of the above CRP.

¶19

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2017 fCRPMP. NO: 4993 OF ?ni7|

¶20

Between:

¶21

Paiem Maheswara Reddy, S/o.Sree Rami Reddy, Aged about 49 years * ° No.4-8-267, Mythri Layout, Puiivenduia Town & Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶22

...PETITIONER/1 RESPONDENT

¶23

AND

¶24

M/s.Sei Green Flash Pvt. Ltd. (a Sun Edision Company) Rep. by its

¶25

Vice President Menon Eternity, 10th Fioor, North Wing New# 165, Old #110, St. Mary's Road Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018, Tamilnadu State.

¶26

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶27

M/s.lM Consutents, Rep. by its CEO, Door No.10, Nagarjuna Nagar Colony, Tarnaka, Secunderabad-500 017, Telangana State.

¶28

M/s.Surya Engineering & Constructions Rep. by its Proprietor B.

¶29

Prakash Reddy, F-14, 4th Floor, RK Complex, Opp.Best Price

¶30

Mangalagiri Road, A.P. State.

¶31

...respondents/respondents

¶32

sfaieH r" «■?, Circumstances s ated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be No.3372/ror No.4441,2017 in CRP

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI N SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO The Court made the following ORDER :

¶34

APHC010298062017

¶35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶36

[3460]

¶37

THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶38

PRESENT

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶40

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3372/2017

¶41

Between:

¶42

M/s. Sei Green Flash Pvt Ltd., Tamilnadu State

¶43

...PETITIONER

¶44

AND

¶45

Palem Maheswara Reddy Kadapa Dist 2 Others and Others

¶46

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶47

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶48

1.N SUBBA RAO

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶50

1.SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO

¶51

The Court made the following:

¶52

¶53

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶54

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3372/2017

¶55

ORDER:

¶56

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 03.07.2017 in I.A.No.112 of 2017 in O.S.No.56 of 2017 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Nellore District.

¶57

The Petitioner is the Defendant No.1. Respondent^No.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Along with the suit, the respondent No.1^{filedI.A.No.112of} 2017 seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from interfering with the erection^of132KV DC/SC line from 132 KV Sub Station, Adurupalli to Solar Plant with Bay Extension at Adurupalli SS Pooling Station in Nellore District pending the suit.

¶58

It is the case of the respondent No.1/Plaintiff^{thatthePetitioner} gave sub contract to Respondent No.2, who inturn gave^{subcontractto} respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 in turn entrusted^theworkto the respondent No.1. It was contended that the plaintiff^{hadexecutedthe} work to a tune of Rs.1,39,94,200/- and out of the said amount, the

¶59

¶60

¶61

Respondent No.3 paid only 25 lakhs to the plaintiff and failed to pay the balance due amount of Rs.1,14,94,200/-. It was further contended that 20% of the work is left and without settling the said amount of Rs.1,14,94,200/- due to the plaintiff/Respondent No.1, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not entitled to interfere with the work. Further, it was contended that they are also not entitled to continue the rest of the project. In that context, the suit was filed and injunction was sought. The trial court granted ad-interim injunction^on 03.07.2017 as sought. Questioning the same, the present CRP was filed.

¶62

This Court on 14.07.2017 after hearing the counsel for petitioner passed the following interim order:

¶63

“ Notice before admission.

¶64

Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 is also permitted to take out personal notice by RPAD to the respondent No.1/Plaintiff and file proof thereof. There shall be interim suspension of the docket Order dated 03.07.2017 in I.A.No.112 of 2017 in O.S.No.56 of 2017 passed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge at Atmakur, Nellore District, on condition of the petitioner/Defendant No.1 depositing a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-^tothe credit of the aforesaid suit on or before 24.07.2017 and file proof thereof. It is made clear that on depositing the aforesaid amount, petitioner/Defendant No.1 is entitled to proceed with the pending work

¶65

¶66

after issuing notice to the respondent No.1/Plaintiff and after recording the status from which the work is being commenced”.

¶67

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it is represented by Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for^{thePetitionerthat} the interim direction of depositing a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the credit of the aforesaid suit on or before 24.07.2017 had been complied with and the work has been completed and power is being generated^fromthesaid project. It was also stated that the suit is still pending.

¶68

In view of the interim order dated 14.07.2017 and compliance of the conditions therein and taking into consideration the subsequent developments, the Interim Order of this Court, extracted above, is made absolute.

¶69

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the parties to agitate their claims before the Civil Court.

¶70

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶71

To,

¶72

SD/- M.SRINIVAS j assistant registrar I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶73

The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Atmakur, Nellore District.

¶74

One CC to SRI. N SUBBA RAO Advocate [OPUC]

¶75

One CC to SRI. SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO Advocate [OPUC]

¶76

three CD COPIES

TAC

HIGH COURT

DATED; 12/09/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.3372 of 2017

t 2 7 NOV 2D?'t I
. Current Section
^^iOfSPATCtV^*^

¶83

DISPOSED OF THE CRP

M/S. Sei Green Flash Pvt. Ltd., Tamilnadu State v. Palem Maheswara Reddy, Kadapa Dist and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sei Green Flash Pvt. Ltd., Tamilnadu State v. Palem Maheswara Reddy, Kadapa Dist and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taneti Giribabu Vs Nemalakanti Yesu Mariyamma and 3 Others

Harijana Naganna Vs P. Mahaboob Basha

Bakki Israel Karunakar, Srikakulam Dist and Another Vs Tammineni Narayana Rao, Srikakulam Dist

M/S Sei Green Flash Pvt. Ltd. Chennai Vs P Maheswara Reddy, Kadapa Dist and 2 Others

Nidadavolu Rama Tulasamma Vs Gunnmella Pattabhi (died)

Kureti Satish Vs Aadi Ravindra Babu