gayatri projects limited - Edelweiss

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITEDwas not paid a sum of Rs. 0.34 lakhs towards his salary and also claimed Rs.1.30 lakhs towards the loss of earning, as hewas jobless for 6 to 7 months. Accordingly plaintiff claimed Rs. 1.87 lakhs. The Hon’ble Court dismissed the suit. .Smt. Dr. Radha Madhavi & Anr vs. P. Kama Raju & Ors.( M.V.O.P 393/2003) at MACT at Vijayawada.The Claimant’s Husband Dr. Ravi Balagani died in an accident with company’s vehicle driven by P.Kama Raju on 03.03.03at about 4.30 p.m. Consequently, the Petitioner preferred Motor Vehicles Original Petition (M.V.O.P) and claimed an amountof Rs.70.00 lakhs. The vehicle of Gayatri Projects Limited, which was involved in the accident, is duly insured. The Tribunalhas passed an award in favour of the petitioner directing the Company to pay Rs. 35 Lakhs and Rs. 39.235 as costs. NewIndia Assurance Company has been directed to indemnify the Company.Rayapati Mehar Vara Prasad vs. Kanireddy Ganesh & Gayatri Projects Limited. ( MVOP of 2003) at MACT, Eluru, WestGodavari DistrictThe Petitioners Mother died in a road accident with the company’s vehicle on 13.11.2002 leaving behind her son and daughteras her legal heirs. Consequently, the petitioners claimed Rs.1.00 Lakh with interest @ 12% per annum as compensation.The Hon’ble Court has passed Decree in favour of Petitioner and copy of the Decree is awaited.The Chief Engineer, Kakinada Port vs. Cemindia, Gayatri Projects Limited & Ors. (No. 2949/2004 against, O.P. No. 137/1998) at High Court of A.P. HyderabadGayatri Projects Limited executed works at Kakinada Port and completed the same on June 30, 1996. As per the AgreementGayatri Projects Limited is entitled for reimbursement of foreign exchange. However, when Gayatri Projects Limited claimedfor reimbursement of foreign exchange the employer refused the claim. Consequently, the matter was referred to a consultant,who recommended the aforesaid reimbursement of foreign exchange in favour of Gayatri Projects Limited. The employer didnot accept the recommendation of the consultant. Consequently, the dispute was referred to arbitration who gave the awardin favour of Gayatri Projects Limited. Thereafter, the employer challenged the award before the Principal Civil Judge, Kakinada.The said Court upheld the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal vide order dated: 22.03.2004. The said Judgment/Decreewas challenged by the Petitioner through the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the Judgement and Decree dated22-03-2004. Notice has been served but the matter is not yet listed The amount involved is Rs. 357 Lakhs.The Chief Engineer, Kakinada Port vs. Cemindia,Gayatri Projects Limited & Anr.( CMA No.1653/2004 against,O.P.No. 137/1998) at High Court of A.P. HyderabadGayatri Projects Limited executed works at Kakinada Port and completed the same on June 30, 1996. As per the AgreementGayatri Projects Limited is entitled for reimbursement of foreign exchange. However, when Gayatri Projects Limited claimedfor reimbursement of foreign exchange the Employer refused the claim. Consequently, the matter was referred to a Consultantwho recommended reimbursement of foreign exchange in favour of Gayatri Projects Limited. The employer did not acceptthe recommendation of the consultant. Consequently, the dispute was referred to arbitration who gave the award in favourof Gayatri Projects Limited. Thereafter, the employer challenged the award before the Principal Civil Judge, Kakinada. Thesaid Court upheld the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal vide order dated: 22.03.2004. The said Judgment/Decree waschallenged through the present Appeal challenging the Judgement and Decree dated 22-03-2004. . Notice has been servedbut the matter is not yet listed. The amount involved is Rs. 357 LakhsAmarnath. T.S. vs. Gayatri Projects Limited (O.S.No.4019/2004 )at City Civil Judge, BangaloreThe Plaintiff (Amarnath. T.S.) executed certain works as sub-contractor at T.K. Halli, Bangalore which was completed onJanuary 21, 2003. He alleged that Gayatri Projects Limited failed and ignored to pay his dues. Consequently, he preferredthe present suit. The Company paid Rs.0.83 lakhs towards full and final settlement on October 21, 2004, the same wasaccepted by the Plaintiff.BJR Earth Movers vs. M/s. Crystal Construction Corporation & Gayatri Projects Limited (O.S. No. 2692/2004) at 2ndSenior Civil Judge, HyderabadThe Plaintiff (BJR Earth Movers) supplied certain materials to the Defendant Cristal Construction Corporation. However, theDefendant failed to pay amount payable to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff made Gayatri Projects Limited as Respondent No. 2 andprayed for interim injunction not to release payments to the Defendant as Defendant is working as sub-contractor with theGayatri Projects Limited. It is to be noted that no relief is prayed against Gayatri Projects Limited and Gayatri Projects Limitedwas not made as defendant in the main suit. Gayatri Projects Limited is not a party in the Plaint. However, Gayatri ProjectsLimited was made party (Respondent No. 2) in interim Application U/o XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC.150