Dismissed

Wardha Power Company Limited v. Maytas Infra Ltd.

Telangana HC23 Mar 2011OSA/27/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed two interconnected interim order appeals filed by Wardha Power Company Limited against Maytas Infra Ltd. The single judge had dismissed applications for injunctions under CPC Order 39. This higher court dismissed the appeals at the admission stage, noting that the interlocutory findings are not binding and allowing fresh applications.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Wardha Power Company Limited Vs Maytas… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶3

O.S.A.Nos. 26 and 27 of 2011

¶4

Date: 23-03-2011

¶5

O.S.A.No.26 of 2011:

¶6

Between: Wardha Power Company Limited

¶7

………. Appellant

¶8

And Maytas Infra Ltd

¶9

……….. Respondent

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶12

O.S.A.Nos. 26 and 27 of 2011

¶13

COMMON ORDER: (Per BPR, J)

¶14

Heard both sides. Since these two appeals are interconnected with each other, they are taken up together for disposal.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for both parties. At their request, the main appeals are taken up together for disposal at the admission stage.

¶16

The appellant herein is the applicant before the learned single Judge in the applications in C.A.No.1094 of 2010 and C.A.No.1552 of 2010, where two interim reliefs are sought viz., 1) direction purportedly under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. against the respondentcompany not to alienate, encumber or otherwise create any charge or deal with their assets including the immovable properties in any manner whatsoever; and

¶17

2) to direct the respondent-company to maintain status quo with regard to its name, pending disposal of the main C.P.No.199 of 2010. The learned single Judge, after contest, did not find favour and dismissed the applications through the orders, dated 18-02-2011. Hence, these appeals.

¶18

The main ground urged on behalf of the appellant is to the effect that the applications as such being interlocutory in its nature, the learned single Judge ought not to have gone into the merits of the case and given findings as such and further even though the appellant has asked for two reliefs, however, if any alternative relief is granted, that could be enough to protect the interest of the appellant. These requests were sought to be opposed on behalf of the respondentcompany.

¶19

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly the impugned proceedings are only interlocutory in its nature. Therefore, it is needless to reiterate that any of the findings or observations made in the impugned proceedings would not be, in any way, binding at the time of final disposal of the case and necessarily it has to be disposed of independently taking into consideration the evidence adduced by both sides. Further, the main proceedings certainly would be disposed of uninfluenced by any of the findings in these proceedings.

¶20

Coming to the aspect of other alternative relief, which was raised for the first time in this appeal, we are of the view that it is always open for the appellant to make any fresh application which would be considered on its own merits in accordance with law.

¶21

Subject to the above, both the appeals are dismissed.

¶22

No order as to costs.

¶23

B. PRAKASH RAO, J

¶24

__________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J

¶25

Date: 23-03-2011 YCR

Wardha Power Company Limited v. Maytas Infra Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wardha Power Company Limited v. Maytas Infra Ltd.

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

Mohd. Haneef Malik (died) per LRs 2 to 5 Vs Khatija Bhanu and Nasira Bhanu and Another

G.Pulla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous), Vs R.Revanth Kumar

Y. Satyanarayana Vs The Kukatpally Municipality

Sri Valli Shipping and Transport Vs The Hindustan Shipyard Limited

M.Rajeshwar Reddy Vs The Indian Overseas Bank

The Indian Overseas Bank Vs M.Rajeshwar Reddy