Dismissed

The Superintending Engineer v. Kings Enterprises , Rep. by its Executive Partner

Telangana HC8 Aug 2012SA/1593/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeals filed by defendants against the dismissal of appeals challenging a decree awarding refund of EMD, FSD, and ASD due to illegal contract termination. The court dismissed the second appeals at the admission stage due to lack of substantial questions of law.

What did the court decide?

Both second appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs awarded. Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

The Superintending Engineer Vs Kings… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

S.A.Nos.1593 of 2011 and 1611 of 2011

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶4

The defendants in O.S.No.50 of 2000 and O.S.No.51 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, are the appellants herein. The plaintiff is a Contractor and as the contract was terminated illegally, the suits were filed for damages. Further claim was made for refund of the E.M.D, F.S.D and A.S.D. The defendants/appellants herein have denied the liability.

¶5

2. After considering the entire evidence in both the suits, the Courts below found that the cancellation of the contract is not proper and as such the withholding of the E.M.D, F.S.D and A.S.D is refundable and consequently passed a decree for claim No.5 whereas the other claims of the plaintiff have been dismissed.

¶6

3. Questioning the same, the appellants have filed first appeals viz., A.S.No.204 of 2010 and 207 of 2010 before the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram and the same were also dismissed.

¶7

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present second appeals are sought to be filed.

¶8

5. Evidently, when the termination of the contract was found to be not proper and when the Courts below have appreciated the claim of the appellants with regard to the other claims made by the plaintiff and having rejected the same, it cannot be contested by the defendants/appellants that there is no proper appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below. When the cancellation of the contract is not proper, the Courts below have rightly ordered refund of the amount under claim No.5.

¶9

6. Both the judgments are based on appreciation of facts and consequently, there are no compelling reasons or substantial questions of law to admit the appeals and consequently, both the Second Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Second Appeals shall stand closed.

¶10

_________________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶11

08.08.2012 vjl

The Superintending Engineer v. Kings Enterprises , Rep. by its Executive Partner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Superintending Engineer v. Kings Enterprises , Rep. by its Executive Partner

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

Anumula Sunitha Reddy Vs Badrinarayana

Nayakula Mekala Bommakka Vs Nayakula Mekala Thippamma

Nandyalam Srinivasan Vs a.M.Mohan Kumar

The Superintending Engineer, Vs King Enterprises

Paladugu Chandra Mouli Vs Vatakula Satya Kumar (Died)

G. Sudharani Vs Vuppala Sarojini Devi