gayatri projects limited - Edelweiss

V. Ramulamma vs. Gayatri Projects Limited & Anr.( No. 349/2000 )at NalgondaThe Petitioner’s Husband died in road accident with vehicle of our company on 18.02.2004 . Consequently, the petitionerfiled the subject petition for compensation for Rs.1 Lakh against Gayatri Projects Limited, the owner of the vehicle and insurancecompany ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.. Prayed for compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh. The matter is pending foradjudication.M/s. James Exporting Co. vs. Gayatri Projects Limited (No.2801/2004) at High Court of BombayThe Plaintiff (M/s James Exporting Co.) alleged that upon the receipt of purchase orders it supplied goods to Gayatri ProjectsLimited and further alleged that Gayatri Projects Limited is liable to pay in amount of Rs.16.42 lakhs together with interest onRs.10.98 lakhs @ 15% per annum from the date of the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.16.42lakhs. Summons for Judgment has not yet been served upon Gayatri Projects Limited.A.P.S.R.T.C & Anr. vs. Bikkam Rama Rao & Ors.( M.A.C.M.A. No. 2770 of 2005) at High Court of A.P., HyderabadThat Bikkam Rama Rao, Respondent No. 1 was injured in road accident between our company’s vehicle and vehicle ofAPSRTC. Consequently, the respondent filed petition u/s 166 (1) (c) of M.V. Act and claimed compensation. The Hon’bleTribunal granted compensation for Rs.2.12 lakhs and also granted Rs.0.10 lakhs towards expenses. The said award dated:02.05.2005 was challenged by APSRTC through this appeal praying for dismissal of the Award, wherein the Hon’ble Tribunaldirected the Appellant to pay Rs.2.12 lakhs towards compensation. Gayatri Projects Limited is the 2 nd Respondent.Uma Maheshswari & Ors. Vs. Gayatri Projects Limited& Anr.( O.P. No. 289 of 2001) at MACT, AnantpurUma Maheshswari, the Petitioner’s No. 1 husband and father of Petitioner’s Nos. 2 to 4 died in a road accident with company’svehicle on 22.2.2001. Consequently, the Petitioners filed a petition U/s 140 and 161 (C) of M.V. Act for a compensation ofRs.10.00 lakhs. The Hon’ble Court granted award in-favour of Petitioners, wherein directed the Respondent No.2 i.e. OrientalInsurance Company to pay Rs.8.38 lakhs and future interest @9% from the date of Petition. However, the Court gave libertyto the Insurance Company to recover the amount, which it paid to the Petitioners from the 1st Respondant (Gayatri ProjectsLimited). Against the award, the Company has preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal before the High Court of A.P andmatter is pending for adjudication.Gouranga Rath vs. (1) Chiranjiv Rao of Ratna Constructions of Srikakulam and M/s Gayatri Projects Limited NALCOProject Damanjodi (C.S. No. 38/2005) at District Court Koraput.Gayatri Projects Limited had appointed M/s Ratna Construction Company of Srikakulam as a Sub-Contractor to execute CivilPackage-III of NALCO Damanjodi. Gouranga Rath was appointed as a sub-contractor by Ratna Constructions for supply ofconstruction material. Ratna Construction had issued a Cheque of Rs.6.50 lakhs to Gouranga Rath, the Plaintiff, which wasdishonoured. Consequently, the Plaintiff preferred the Present Suit, Gayatri Projects Limited being the main contractor hasbeen impleaded as Defendant No. 2. The matter is pending for adjudication.M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd vz. Gayatri Engineeging Co (CRP 6823/2005) at High Court of A.P. HyderabadGayatri Engineering Co. executed civil engineering works in Medium Merchant Structural Mill Part - II. In the said work theGayatri Engineering Co. submitted the following claims:a) Claim No.1: Price variation due to changes in labour, wages (Rs. 5.02 lakhs).b) Claim No. 2: Payment of Price variation (full escalations) due to revision of daily minimum wages of unskilledworker.c) Claim No. 3: Interest on the above Claims.The claim amounted to Rs.42.41 lakhs (for value of work done upto 31.01.1991) and the Company also prayed for directionto the Respondent for release payment of Price variation due to revision of daily minimum wages of unskilled workers for allthe quantities of work done upto 31.01.1991.The said Claims were rejected by the Employer. Consequently, the Claimant referred the disputes to the arbitration. Theumpire allowed claims Nos. 1 and 3 vide Award dated: 27.02.1993. The Hon’ble Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwakamade the award Rule of Court. The Petitioner challenged the aforesaid Decree before the Hon’ble High Court. The amountinvolved is Rs.47.433 Lakhs. The Hon’ble High Court granted interim stay in favour of the Petitioner, thereby the Hon’ble151