gayatri projects limited - Edelweiss

for Loss of Profit suffered by the Claimant. The total amount involved is Rs. 871.75 lakhs. The Statement of Claim along withdocuments on behalf of the Claimant has been submitted to the Arbitral Tribunal on March 8, 2004. The decision of ArbitralTribunal is awaited.List of Outstanding cases against the Directors of Gayatri Projects LimitedCivil CasesSakaraboina Sathemma and others vs. T.V. Sandeep Kumar Reddy (No.B/3483/2002-04)Sakaraboina Sathemma, the Petitioner No. 1 Claimed that she is legally wedded wife of Mr. S.Sailu alias Sakli Bedda Saigaand the Petitioners No. 2 & 3 are her sons and S. Sailu. They claimed that Bedda Saiga cultivated the land in Survey No.880 as her protected Tenant. They further stated that Bedda Saigea died on 19.09.1987 leaving behind the petitioners as hislegal heirs and as such the petitioners are entitled to get the sanction of succession of petty land survey no. 880. However,the said fact was disputed by the respondant Mr. T.V. Sandeep Kumar Reddy who is the Managing Director of Gayatri ProjectsLimited The matter has been dismissed by the MRO Medchal Mandal Ranga Reddy district vide order dated; 30.04.2004.(Why respondent disputed the fact, does he has any interest in the said property, and when the matter has been dismissedby MRO then why we are giving the case. Also in which court the case has been filed has not been given)Ms.Sathemma has not filed any Appeal against MRO’s Order. Hence, this matter can be dropped from the list.Paturu Venkata Seshaih and Ors vs. Gunapati Panduranga Reddy, T. Indira and Ors. at Transfer Civil Misc. Petition249 of 2005 in the High Court of A.P. HyderabadThe Appellant No. 1 is 15th Petitioner in A.S. 79 of 2002 pending on the file of Third Additional District Judge, Nellore. TheAppellants filed I.A. No. 569/1977 in O.S. No. 157 of 1946 for partition, possession and mesne profit (as per the civil procedurecode, mesne profits are profits arising out of the use of property) in the year 1946. The Petitioners also filed I.A. No. 116/1977in O.S. No. 89 of 1947 for appointment of Commissioner and Partition of I.T. No. 1 of Schedule Property and for possessionand for determination of mesne profits before Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The said interim applications were dismissed bythe Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Nellore vide common order dated:16.03.2001. The Petitioners herein challenged the saidorder by preferring A.S. 79 of 2002 against the I.A. No. 569 of 77 in O.S. 157 of 46 before the Third Additional Dirstrict Judge,Nellore and A.S. No. 2110 of 2002 against L.A No. 116/77 in O.S. No. 89/47 before the Hon’ble High Court. Both the appealsare pending for adjudication in respective Courts. However, the Petitioners herein preferred this C.M.P. for transfer of A.S. 79of 2002 pending on the file of Third Additional District Judge, Nellore to the Hon’ble High Court and to be heard along withA.S. No. 2110 of 2002. In this case Smt. T. Indira Reddy named as Respondent No. 5. The matter is pending for adjudication.Smt. T. Indira Reddy is not claiming any interest whatsoever in the suit Schedule Property.Cases pending against Promoter Group CompaniesExcept as described below, there are no outstanding litigation, suits or criminal proceedings or civil prosecutions or taxliabilities against companies promoted by our Promoters, and there are no defaults, non-payment of statutory dues, overduesto banks/ financial institutions, defaults in dues payable to holders of any debentures, bond or fixed deposits and arrears onpreference shares issued by the group companies (including past cases where penalties may or may not have been awardedand irrespective of whether they are specified under paragraph (i) of part 1 of Schedule XIII of the Companies Act, 1956).Outstanding cases filed against Gayatri Capital LimitedCivil CasesVenkateswara Rao vs. Gayatri Capital Limited (CD NO.68/2002) at A P State Consumer forum, Hyderabad.The claimant has declared himself as a client of Gayatri Capital Limited and is making a claim of sale proceeds of an amountof Rs. 15.97 Lakhs. The claimant was never registered as a Client and the Client Code Number (Account No. V:006) allegedto be allotted was a fictitious numberConsequently, the Hon’ble State Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint againstGayatri Capital Limited. However the complainant approached the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission byfiling Appeal (F.A.No.239/2006). The Hon’ble National Dispute Redressal Commission has issued Notice to Gayatri CapitalLimited to appear on 10-11-2006.Venkateswarlu vs. Gayatri Capital Limited (FA NO.23/2003) at A P State Consumer forum, Hyderabad.The claimant has declared himself as a client of Gayatri Capital Limited and is making a claim for an amount of Rs 4.16155