Allowed

Sreenivasa Constructions Corporation, v. The District Collector and Special Officer

Telangana HC1 Nov 2016WP/20202/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of three writ petitions regarding outstanding bills payable to petitioners, who are contractors for the Municipal Corporation. As liability was admitted by the Corporation due to lack of funds, the Court directed payment within three months without going into merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second respondent to verify records and make arrangements for payment of outstanding amount payable to petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

Sreenivasa Constructions Corporation, Vs The District Collector and Special Officer — Telangana HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.20181, 20202 & 20646 of 2012

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

These three writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they relate to payment of outstanding bills payable to the petitioners.

¶4

The petitioners state that they are contractors, who were executing several works for the second respondent–Municipal Corporation. The petitioners have been submitting the required bills and in spite of the same, no amount was paid to them as stipulated in the contract. The petitioners submitted representations and when they did not elicit any response, the present writ petitions were filed.

¶5

This Court, by orders in the writ petitions, directed the respondents to take steps for payment of bills which are due to the petitioners for the works executed by them, within a period of two months. When the said order was not implemented, contempt cases were separately filed by the petitioners and they are pending.

¶6

A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent admitting the outstanding amount payable to the petitioners and stated that due to lack of funds, the Municipal Corporation is not paying the bills. It is also stated that revised estimates are prepared and submitted for approval and after receipt of approval for increased project cost, the same would be submitted to the Government for sanction. The said counter affidavit was filed way back in the year 2012. The petitioners stated that though some amounts were paid after filing of the writ petitions, still amounts are due from the second respondent.

¶7

¶8

In view of the dispute with regard to the payment of outstanding amount and admission of the second respondent with regard to their liability, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case, but directs the second respondent to verify the records and make necessary arrangements for payment of outstanding amount payable to the petitioners within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶9

These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶10

_____________________________
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
01 st November, 2016
Bvv

Sreenivasa Constructions Corporation, v. The District Collector and Special Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreenivasa Constructions Corporation, v. The District Collector and Special Officer

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

M/s. Nicomac Clean Rooms Far East Private Limited Vs -

M/s. Nicomac Micro Solutions Private Limited Vs -

Kumbala Raji Reddy, Vs Ronald Ross

T.Vinod Vs The Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad

Harshvardhan Chokhani Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

B. Anjaneyulu Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its