Dismissed

M/s. Vishnu Decolem Engineering and Efectrical Works, v. The Southern Power Distribution

Telangana HC3 Sept 2024WP/9740/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by engineering firm challenging non-payment of bills by Southern Power Distribution Company. Petitioner sought writ of Mandamus and interim direction for payment. Court found cause of action for adjudication has expired.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/s. Vishnu Decolem Engineering and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

132521

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:9740 oF 2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Vishnu Decolem Engineering. & Electrical Works, Door. No. 6_1_20g, Vidyanaglr Colony, Natgo.'nda, N5lgonda Oistirct, rep.'Oy its prdpr[tor] 6l Venkata Chary.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Southern Power Distribution, Company of Telanqana Limited . reo. bv its Chairman and Managing Director, Mint Compound, tiyderabad, Tdlariga;'a^- State.

¶13

2 The Chief General [V1anager, Ranga Reddy Zone, The Southern power Pistribution^{Company of Tetangana Limiteil,MintCompound,Hyderabad,} Telangana State.

¶14

The Superintending Engineer, Operation, The Southern power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited , Nalgonda District, Nalgonda, Telangana State.

¶15

4 The Divisional Engineer, System lmprovements, The Southern power Distribution -Company of Telangana State. Telangana Limited, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Diskict,

¶16

5 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, System lmprovements-I, The Southern Power. Distribution Compan! of Tdlangana t-iririteO, ttiigonira, Nalgo;A; District, Telangana State.

¶17

6 The Accounts Officer, Expenditure, The Southern power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, Telarpana State.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ or order of direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in not paying the bill in terms of the work measurernent and recommendation of the sth respondent vide letter No. ADEiS.l-ll/NLG/F.No./D.No. 2O12t2O14 dated 15.11.2014 in respect of

¶20

¶21

¶22

the work executed by the petitioner pursuant to the Agreement No. 56t13-14 daled 28.10.2013 as highly illegal, arbitrary, irrational, void apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg), 21 ,26s,300-4 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the bill in respect of the part-work executed by the petitioner with 24o/o interest per annum on the bill amount.

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO :12815 OF 2015)

¶24

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith setfle the bi in respect of the works executed by the petitioner pursuant to the Agreement No. s6113-14 in terms of the check measurements and recommendations of the Sth respondents vide letter No. ADE/S.ll|/NLG/F.No.D.No. 201212014 dated 15.11.2014 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.V. NAGARJUNA BABU

¶26

counsel for the Respondents: sRr R. vrNoD REDDY (sc FoR TSTRANsco)

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

-7

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶32

WRIT PETITION 0.9740 0F 2015

¶33

ORD ER:

¶34

Heard Sri D.V. Nagarjun Babu,^{learned counsel} appearing on behalf of the^{petitionerand Sri R. Vinod} Reddy, tearned Standing Counsel for^{TS Transco,} appearing on behalf of^{respondentNos. I to 5.}

¶35

The petitaoner approached the^{Court seeking} prayer as under:

¶36

" ....to issue a writ or order of direction^more particularly one in the nature of Writ of^Mandamus declaring the action of the^{rqspondentsin not paying} the bill in terms of the work^{measurement and} recommendation of the 5th^{respondentvide letterNo.} ADE/S.IIIlNLG/F.No./D.No.2012/2Ot4,^{dated 15.11.} 2OL4 in respect of the^{work executedby the petitioner} pursuant to the Agreement No.56/13-14^{dated 28'10.} 2013 as highly illegal,^{arbitrary, irrational, void, apart} from being violative of^{Articles1a 19(1)(9) 2t,265,} 300-A of the Constitution of^{India and consequently} direct the respondents^{to pay the bill in respect of the} part work executed by the^{petitioner with 24olo interest} per annum on the bill amount^{and pass such other} order or orders as this^{HonourableCourt may deem fit} and proper in the circumstances^{of the case".}

¶37

,n,

¶38

¶39

It is represented^{by learned counsel appearingon} behalf of the^{petitionerthat the causeof action in the present} writ^petition does^{not survive for adjudicationany more'}

¶40

Bringing the said^{submission ofthe learned} counsel appearing^{on behalf of the petitioner on record'} the Writ^{Petitaonis dismissed as infructuous'However'}

¶41

there shall be^{no order as to costs'}

¶42

As a sequel, the^{miscellaneous petitions,if any,pending}

¶43

in the Writ Petition^{shall alsostand closed'}

¶44

SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII

¶45

SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To, 1. One CC to SRt D.V. NAGARJUN4 g{BU, Advocate tOpUCl 2. one cc to SRr R. vtNoD REDDV tsc-roniSiHnrirscoliopucl 3. Two CD Copies BN

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310912024

ORDER

-1=='
1 i'lr-
,. '.<br>+
J ,l
o 3 tl rlEtl 2tr24 ati. ,i
-t'
':=jl'''' '' ' r'rrr o *

¶52

WP.No.9740 o{ 2015

¶53

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

COP
{
7-t,
t)

M/s. Vishnu Decolem Engineering and Efectrical Works, v. The Southern Power Distribution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Vishnu Decolem Engineering and Efectrical Works, v. The Southern Power Distribution

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

Bomma Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telanagana

M/S. Hindoil Industries (Rrs 961) Ida Kattedan, Vs Andhra Pradesh Eleltricity Regulatory

M/S. Shrinath Rotopack (P) Ltd. Vs Andhra Pradesh Eleltricity Regulatory commission

Jose Nedumthundam Vs State of Telangana and 4 others

M/s. Suryalata Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs The Sothern Power Distribution Company of

Jallipalli Phanindra Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana (Tgspdcl)