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

2006 Supreme(AP) 1072

2006 (6) ALT 714
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
V.V.S. RAO, J.
Yella Constructions Limited - Petitioner.
v.
East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar, rep.
by its General Manager and others - Respondents.
Writ Petition No.16713 of 2005
Decided on 15-09-2006.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. D.V. Sitarama Murthy, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.R. Ashok,· Sr. Counsel for Smt. C.V. Vinitha Reddy, S.C. for Railways for the Respondents.

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Indian Companies Act, 1956 – Identity – Company Entity – Banned– Company filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring order/letter, issued by Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer (Projects), East Coast Railway – By said letter, M/s. Annapurna Rail S & T Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam (as the petitioner company was known earlier) was informed that Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) by letter, decided that the business dealings with M/s. Annapurna Construction, and also their sister concerns and partners/shareholders should be banned on all Indian Railways and organizations for a period of five years and therefore, business dealings with the petitioners are banned for a period of five years as "some of the partners of M/s. Annapurna Construction, Vijayawada are appearing in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the petitioner company" – Writ petition is filed mainly contending that the petitioner company being an independent entity has its own identity different from Annapurna Construction, Vijayawada and that it has nothing to do with Annapurna Construction, Vijayawada – Held, Test is whether a reasonable action in the background of the said facts would have come to such conclusion – Answer must be emphatically in the affirmative – Viewed from any angle, the two firms and the company were acting in unison with consensus ad idem and therefore, if there was a fraud committed by Vijayawada firm, the other two cannot feign ignorance and seek exoneration from misdeeds – Court will see that the legislature and the administrative authority "maintain a proper balance between the adverse effects which the legislation or the administrative order may have on the rights, liberties or interests of persons keeping in mind the purpose which they were intended to serve" – Legislature and the administrative authority are, however, given an area of discretion or a range of choices but as to whether the choice made infringes the rights excessively or not is for the court. That is what is meant by proportionality – Writ Petition Dismissed

ORDER

INTRODUCTION:

M/s. Annapurna Rail S& T Construction Limited is a company registered on 11-06-1998 under Indian Companies Act, 1956. It was incorporated with the main object of carrying on business of undertaking contract works especially Signalling and Telecommunications (S& T) works with Indian Railways. On 10-02-2004, the name of the said company was changed as M/s. Yella Construction Limited (the petitioner herein). As per the Memorandum and Articles of Association, there are six shareholders including M/s. Y. Raghavaiah and Y. Venkata Lakshmi. There are four Directors in the Board of Directors of the company including Y. Raghavaiah. The company filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the order/letter, dated 21-07-2005 issued by the Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer (Projects), East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar - the third respondent herein (as illegal and arbitrary). By the said letter, M/s. Annapurna Rail S & T Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam (as the petitioner company was known earlier) was informed that the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) by letter No.2002/SIG/B/8, dated 12-06-2003, decided that the business dealings with M/s. Annapurna Construction, Vijayawada and also their sister concerns and partners/shareholders should be banned on all Indian Railways and organizations for a period of five years with effect from 28-05-2003 and therefore, the business dealings with the petitioners are banned for a period of five years as "some of the partners of M/s. Annapurna Construction, Vijayawada are appearing in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the petitioner company". This writ petition is filed mainly contending that the petitioner company being an independent entity has its own identity different from Annapurna Construction, Vijayawada and that it has nothing to do with Annapurna Construction, Vijayawada.

BACK GROUND FACTS:

2. The pleadings on record are aplenty by way of affidavits, counter, reply and rejoinder affidavits. There is, however, not much dispute about the constitution and functioning of three firms/concerns and business they were concentrating on. Therefore, it is necessary to notice this aspect of the matter having regard to the allegation made by the respondents that the firm at Visakhapatnam is sister concern of the firm at Vijayawada. This is necessary because the opposite parties agree that the axe of ban can only fall on the petitioner company if it is indeed the sister concern of Vijayawada firm and not otherwise. If the petitioner or its precursor is not a sister concern of Vijayawada firm, the whole exercise leading to the issue of impugned letter by the third respondent would be irrational, illegal and arbitrary.

(i) Annapurna Constructions, Vijayawada

3. M/s. Annapurna Constructions, Vijayawada (hereafter called, Vijayawada firm) is a partnership firm started from 01-04-1990 but a formal partnership deed was executed on 21-02-1991. This firm was started by two families, namely, Yell a family and Idulapati family. Idulapati Srinivasa Rao as Managing Partner and his father Radhakrishna Murthy represented Idulapati family. Yella Koteswara Rao and Yella Annapurna represented Yella family. Be it noted, these two are younger brother and mother of one Yella Raghavaiah. The two families have a major share in the firm besides two other partners. The partnership was at Will. It was to operate from premises bearing door No.60-17-8, Navodaya colony, Vijayawada-10 "to do business in contracting works in Government Departments as well as private parties and to do any other business as may be decided by the partners advantageous to the firm". The Managing Partner, who was authorised to file tenders and enter/sign agreements and books on behalf of the firm. This firm was reconstituted under partnership deed, dated 21-03-1992 with effect from 01-04-1991 with nine partners. These include three members from Idulapati family, namely, Srinivasa Rao, s/o Radhakrishna Murth










































































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top