gayatri projects limited - Edelweiss

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITEDparking at fish market by persons on main approach roads. Claim No. 5: For Losses due to Respondents insistenceon working in prolonged monsoon seasons. The said Claims were rejected by the Employer as a result of whichthe claims were referred to Arbitration. The total amount of the claim is Rs.892.85 LakhsThe Hon’ble Arbitratorrejected the claims of Gayatri Projects Limited. Consequently Gayatri Projects Limited challenged the Award byfiling an Application U/s 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, wherein prayed to set aside the Award. Matteris pending for Final Arguments.7. Gayatri Projects Limited vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (O.S. No.111/2000) at Sr. Civil Judge, Guntur.Gayatri Projects Limited purchased Earth Moving Machine i.e. L&T 580, Machine SL No. 042 in the year 1991. On26.11.1999 the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the site at Mangalagiri and seized the said machine alleging thatthe company failed registration of the Vehicle (Earth Moving Machine) as well payment of road tax. Gayatri ProjectsLimited filed the present suit for declaration of the Vehicle Check Report issued by the RTO in respect of theVehicle (Earth Moving Machine) as well for the seizure of the same on the ground that the same is illegal. TheMatter is coming up for hearing on 15.06.2006 for Plaintiff’s evidence.8. Gayatri Projects Limited vs. The Government of A.P. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1443 of 2004) at Supreme Courtof India, DelhiGayatri Projects Limited executed work “Site leveling and Gradation Work” at Simhadri Thermal Power Project,Visakhatatnam which was started on January 4, 1999 and completed on January 31, 2000. For execution of thework the Petitioner used Earth/Soil. However, the Department of Mines and Geology alleged that, the material usedby the Gayatri Projects Limited falls in the category of Gravel/ Ordinary Clay and is thus liable to pay seignior agecharges with penalty. The said contention of the Department was appreciated by the High Court who directedGayatri Projects Limited to pay normal seignior age charges of Rs.173.92 lakhs and 5 time penalty of Rs.869.59lakhs.The said order of the High Court was challenged by Gayatri Projects Limited before Hon’ble Supreme Court. TheHon’ble Supreme Court granted stay in favour of Gayatri Projects Limited and allowed the Special Leave Petition(SLP). The Civil appeal is pending for final arguments.9. Gayatri Projects Limited vs. Kapil Earthcon Pvt. Ltd. (A.A. No.18/2005) at High Court of A.P., HyderabadGayatri Projects Limited appointed the Kapil Earthcon India Limited, as Piece Rate Worker for execution of KolhapurRoad Work. However, the Respondent after taking the advance amount; without intimation and without repaying theamount payable by it to Gayatri Projects Limited closed the work and vanished from the site.Gayatri Projects Limited issued a notice, demanding Rs.49.23 lakhs along with interest @ 24% p.a. and alsodemanded Rs.10.00 lakhs towards damages for breach of trust and agreement. However, no reply was receivedfrom the Respondent. As a result, Gayatri Projects Limited preferred an application U/s 11(5) of Arbitration andConciliation Act 1996 read with Section 151 of CPC. The said application was allowed by the Hon’ble High Courtwhich appointed Hon’ble Justice C.V.N. Sastri Retd. Judge, High Court of A.P., as Sole Arbitrator.The claim amount is Rs.59.23 lakhs as per the Statement of Claim submitted by Gayatri Projects Limited onFebruary 13, 2006. The Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and requested for adjournment to file reply.Accordingly, the matter has been adjourned to 12.06.2006 and now the matter is listed for final arguments.10. Gayatri Projects Limited vs. State of A.P. & Ors. (O.S.No.1/2001) at 1st Addl. District Judge, Karim NagarGayatri Projects Limited was awarded canal works of Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP) Projects by the State of A.Pwhich was completed on May 31, 2004. Time factor was the major essence of the contract. However, the employerfailed to give the work fronts as a result of which the Contractor (Gayatri Projects Limited) could not achieve thetarget of the 1st mile-stone. The employer without considering the reasons for delay imposed liquidated damagesof Rs.55.78 lakhs stating that, the contractor failed to execute the works on time. Gayatri Projects Limited initiallyfiled Suit for permanent injunction. However, the Hon’ble court refused to grant temporary injunction. Andconsequently, the employer collected the liquidated damages from the bills of the Company.Gayatri Projects Limited has amended the suit and has prayed for recovery of Rs.66.66 lakhs with interest. TheHon’ble Court granted decree in favour of Gayatri Projects Limited.148