gayatri projects limited - Edelweiss

Govt. of Andhra Pradesh vs. Gayatri Engineering Co.(CMA 1774/2000 against, O.P.NO.106/1992) at High Court of A.P.,HyderabadThe Company executed the works at Yeluru Left Main Canal which commenced in Jan. 1987 and the completed the sameby April 1990 except for a small quantity of 2000 cum of excavation of hard rock. However, on 5th May 1990 there was acyclone. Because of the said cyclonic storm the water inundated the canal under construction and caused huge damage.The same was intimated to the Employer. The Employer recognized the damage and agreed to pay @ Rs.5/- per hour fordewatering and Rs.90/- for desilting. After assurance of the Employer the company executed the works. However, the Employerrefused to pay the bills as per the above said agreed prices. Consequently, the company submitted the claims to SuperintendingEngineer (SE) which were rejected by the Employer. As a result of which the company referred the disputes to the arbitration.The arbitrator passed the Award in favour of the company. The same was confirmed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge,Visakhapatnam. The State of A.P. challenged the Decree by preferring this Appeal. The matter is pending for final Arguments.Govt. of Andhra Pradesh vs. Gayatri Engineering Co.( CMA 1777/2000 against, O.P.NO.107/1992) at High Court of A.P.,HyderabadThe Company executed the works at Yeluru Left Main Canal which commenced in Jan. 1987 and the completed the sameby April 1990 except for a small quantity of 2000 cum of excavation of hard rock. However, on 5th May 1990 there was acyclone. Because of the said cyclonic storm the water inundated the canal under construction and caused huge damage.The same was intimated to the Employer. The Employer recognized the damage and agreed to pay @ Rs.5/- per hour fordewatering and Rs.90/- for desilting. After assurance of the Employer the company executed the works. However, the Employerrefused to pay the bills as per the above said agreed prices. Consequently, the company submitted the claims to SuperintendingEngineer (SE) which were rejected by the Employer. As a result of which the company referred the disputes to the arbitration.The arbitrator passed the Award in favour of the company. The same was confirmed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge,Visakhapatnam. The State of A.P. challenged the Decree by prefering this Appeal. The matter is pending for final Arguments.Kakinada Port vs. Cemindia, Gayatri Projects Limited & Anr.( CMA No.4152/200 IN, O.S. No.33/2003) at High Court ofA.P. HyderabadThe Gayatri Projects Limited executed work at Kakinada Port the works were started in the year 1992 and completed byMarch 97. The final bill is pending. However, the Employer alleged that the Gayatri Projects Limited defaulted in payment ofseigniorage charges. Accordingly imposed penalty and further alleged that Gayatri Projects Limited failed and ignored topay the balance seigniorage charges with penalty i.e Rs.166.79 lakhs and invoked the Bank Guarantee. Consequently, theJoint Venture preferred suit for permanent injunction. The Hon’ble Court confirmed the interim injunction in-favour of Plaintiff.The said order was challenged by the Kakinada Port through this subject appeal. The Kakinada Port Challenged the Orderdated 02.08.2004. The matter is settled. Withdrawal of the Appeal is a formality.Shri. M.K. Avhat Vs. Gayatri Projects Limited (Arbitration Petition No. 12/2005) before the Hon’ble Court at BombayThe petitioner (M.K. Avhat) was one of the Sub-Contractor to whom Ch.624.500 to Ch. 627.000 of Kolhapur Road work wasawarded by Gayatri Projects Limited vide Work Order dated 07.09.2002. The petitioner vanished from the site without priorintimation to the Company in November, 2002, thereby violating the terms of the said Work Order. As per the records of theCompany the petitioner is not entitled for any amount and is liable to pay damages for illegal termination of the contract,which caused delay in execution of the work by the Company. The Respondent (Gayatri Projects Limited) would defend thematter on merits. The matter is pending for adjudication.Debt Recovery TribunalUTI vs. Gayatri Projects Limited (DRT NO.1,O.A. No.70/2004.) at MumbaiGayatri Projects Limited obtained long term loan with specific repayment schedule. However, due to certain difficulties GayatriProjects Limited failed to repay certain installments on time. Consequently, the UTI preferred an application for debt recoverybefore the Debt Recovery Tribunal claiming for Rs. 1617.26 lakhs. Gayatri Projects has settled the matter out of the DebtRecovery Tribunal and is making the payment as per the revised schedule. The matter is still to be withdrawn from the DRTand is adjourned sinedio.153