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

2013 Supreme(AP) 127

L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. , Mumbai – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
E. Manohar for Shireen Sethna Baria, C.R. Sridharan, P. Venkata Rao, Vedula Venkata Ramana for G. Narendera Chetty, D. Prakash Reddy for D. Seshadri Naidu, Venkateswerllu Kesamsetty, M.S. Srinivasa Iyengar, Government Pleader Mines and Geology, Government Pleader for Irrigation and Common Area Development, Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, Advocate General/Government Pleader for GAD, Government Pleader for Municipal MA&UD Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Advocate General/Government Pleader for General Administration, Advocate General/Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, Ponnam Ashok Goud (Assistant Solicitor General), Suma Harinath Reddy (SC for APSIDC), Advocate General and Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare, Counsel for the Appearing Parties.

ORDER

In this batch of writ petitions, common question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the seigniorage fee or dead rent is payable on the gravel or soil that emanates in the course of digging of foundations for civil works of different categories.

2. The petitioners are contractors or agencies, undertaking civil works of different types, mostly entrusted by the Government. In the course of execution of works, be it, for construction of buildings or laying pipelines, the digging or excavation takes place. After the foundations are constructed, or pipelines are laid, as the case may be, part of the earth that is dug from the trenches is used infilling them. The remaining part, which represents the volume of the foundation, or pipe, laid in the trench, would remain. Most of the time, it is spread by the side of the works. In exceptional cases, it is transported to a place, outside the site of construction. In case of construction of buildings, it may be used at other places in the same site.

3. The petitioners have been carrying out works under different contracts. The relevant agreements did not provide for any payment or deduction of seigniorage fee or dead rent on the























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