SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(AP) 625

A.VENKATARAMI REDDY, V.NEELADRI RAO
Mir Qudrath Ali Khan – Appellant
Versus
Muzaffar Ali Khan – Respondent


V. NEELADRI RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal and the cross-objections are directed against the Judgment in o. S. No. 291 of 1982 (old O. S. No. 995 of 1980) on the file of the Addl. Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE facts which give raise to these proceedings are as under: The plaintiff is an Architect. He was engaged by the defendant for construction of Shalimar cinema Theatre, which was originally named as Pakeezah. Ex. A-1 agreement dated 7-10-1977 was executed by the plaintiff, and defendant. The material terms of the said agreement are as follows:"1. We shall render you the complete services for execution of above project namely: (a) Preparation of complete set of architectual designs/drawings; (b) structural Engineer s services i. e. , designing of R. C. C. and other structural members; (c) preparation of estimates and tender documents; (d) calling of tenders and submission of comparative statements; (e) Co-ordination between you and all contractors / agencies; (f) supervision and quality check of the construction; (g) scrutiny and checking of contractors bills; (h) Assistance and advise in selection of Materials / agencies; (i) Assistance in preparing project repo














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top