Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, CHALLA GUNARANJAN
Unitech – NCC (JV) a Joint venture of M/s. United Ltd., Madhapur, Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
I.S.N. Raju Infrastructures (P) Ltd – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and suit details. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. special court's ruling on plaintiffs' applications. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. arguments regarding the maintainability and authorization. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. discussion on maintainability under article 227. (Para 21 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. merits of the special court's discretion. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 6. conclusion on c.r.p decisions. (Para 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Heard Sri D.S. Sivadarshan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. P. Sundar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Venkata Srujan Vegi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff.
2. Sri Mudunuri Anand Kumar, learned standing counsel appeared for National Highways Authority of India (in short, NHAI), the 4th respondent.
I. FACTS:
3. The petitioner M/s. Unitech – NCC (IV) is the 1st defendant in C.O.S.No.17 of 2018, (in short, COS suit) filed by the plaintiff-1st respondent on the file of the court of the Special Judge for Trial Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam (in short, the Special Court).
4. The suit was filed against the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 (defendants 2,3 and 4 respectively in C.O.S)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
