Disposed

E.Madhusudhan Rao v. The Superintendent Engineer, Kakatiya Thermal

Telangana HC12 Mar 2010WP/5749/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-response of a designated authority regarding withheld machinery. The court did not address the merits of the claim but directed the authority to reply to the petitioner's notice.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 1 to issue a reply to the petitioner's notice of 02.03.2010 within two weeks if received.

E.Madhusudhan Rao Vs The Superintendent… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶5

Writ Petition No.5749 of 2010

¶6

Between:

¶7

E.Madhusudhan Rao

¶8

..... Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

1.The Superintendent Engineer, Kakatiya Thermal Power Station, Chelpur, Warangal District and 2 others.

¶11

.....Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Seetharam Chaparla Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Mr.K.Chidambaram Counsel for Respondent No.3: ---

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

Order:

¶15

In this Writ Petition, the grievance, in short, of the petitioner is that despite notice, dated 2^nd March, 2010, respondent No.2 has not been responding to the same. The petitioner entered into a contract with respondent No.3 for supply of certain machinery to be

¶16

used by the latter, as a subcontractor of respondent No.2, in the work pertaining to Kakatiya Thermal Power Station represented by respondent No.1.

¶17

Though it is conceded by Sri Seetharam Chaparla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent No.1, still he contends that as the machinery belonging to his client is held up with respondent No.1, the said authority is bound to respond to the notice issued by the petitioner.

¶18

Without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner for return of the machinery, it will suffice to dispose of the Writ Petition directing respondent No.1 to issue appropriate reply to notice, dated

¶19

02-03-2010, sent by the petitioner, if the same has been received by the former. Such a reply shall be sent to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶21

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.7414 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

¶23

12^th March, 2010 lur

E.Madhusudhan Rao v. The Superintendent Engineer, Kakatiya Thermal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Madhusudhan Rao v. The Superintendent Engineer, Kakatiya Thermal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.Satyanarayana Vs The Prohibition and Excise Commissioner, Hyderabad

M/s. Balaji Rice Mill, Bandumilli Road, Vs The Superintending Engineer Operation

Sri Lakshmi Nrusimha Rytu Sangham, Vs The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary

M. Mohan Krishna, Vs Secunderabad Contonment Board

T.Ramesh Reddy Vs Union Bank of India., High Court of Branch

A. Sridevi Vs The District Level Committee (sand Auction)