AI Overview...

Lakshmi Venkateshwara Constructions - The name appears in multiple legal contexts, including civil petitions and complaints, indicating involvement in construction-related disputes and legal proceedings M/S. GPNR CONSTRUCTIONS vs UNION OF INDIA - Karnataka, MR.S.SURESH, PIP vs M/S SHREE LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA CONSTRUCTIONS - Consumer State, Sri. Nataru Anil Kumar, S/o. N. Audiseshaiah, Rep. by his GPA Holder Sri N. Audiseshaiah, S/o. Late N. Chennaiah, Age 60 Yrs, vs 1. M/s. Laxshmi Adarsh Constructions, a Firm registered as per te provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1952, Having is office at H.No.8-3-169/148/402, Siddhartha Nagar, Hyderabad-500038-A.P. - Consumer State.
Legal Disputes and Complaints - The company or individuals associated with Lakshmi Venkateshwara Constructions have faced complaints and legal actions concerning construction activities, possibly involving contractual or regulatory issues MR.S.SURESH, PIP vs M/S SHREE LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA CONSTRUCTIONS - Consumer State, Sri. Nataru Anil Kumar, S/o. N. Audiseshaiah, Rep. by his GPA Holder Sri N. Audiseshaiah, S/o. Late N. Chennaiah, Age 60 Yrs, vs 1. M/s. Laxshmi Adarsh Constructions, a Firm registered as per te provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1952, Having is office at H.No.8-3-169/148/402, Siddhartha Nagar, Hyderabad-500038-A.P. - Consumer State.
Construction Activities and Regulatory Issues - Several references suggest disputes over construction work, with some actions being challenged or scrutinized by authorities. For instance, issues related to unauthorized construction, as indicated by notices and orders to halt or explain certain activities P. Hussaini vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal - Andhra Pradesh.
Specific Projects and Activities - The sources mention activities like drilling borewells, which courts have clarified do not fall under 'construction works' as per relevant laws, indicating that not all activities by or associated with Lakshmi Venkateshwara Constructions are considered construction under legal definitions M/S GVR CONSTRUCTIONS vs UNION BANK OF INDIA - Karnataka, INDKAR00000042644.
Religious and Cultural Involvement - The company or associated entities seem to be involved in managing or funding temples, such as Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Venkateswara Swamy Temple and Sri Sitaramanjaneya Swamy Temple, with some disputes over fund management and development Padmavathi Sametha Venkateshwara Swamy Viswasanthi Seva Samithi, Gorantla VS State of A. P. , Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments. IV) Department - Andhra Pradesh.
Summary - Lakshmi Venkateshwara Constructions is primarily involved in construction activities that have led to legal disputes regarding regulatory compliance, unauthorized work, and contractual issues. The company is also linked to temple management and funding, with some activities falling outside the scope of 'construction' as defined by law. The legal cases reflect ongoing regulatory scrutiny and disputes over construction and related activities Various references.

Analysis and Conclusion:
The entity Lakshmi Venkateshwara Constructions appears to operate within the construction sector, facing legal challenges related to compliance and project execution. Its involvement extends into religious infrastructure, which sometimes leads to disputes over fund management and developmental authority. The legal landscape indicates a need for clear adherence to construction regulations and transparency in temple-related activities to avoid further disputes.

Search Results for "Lakshmi Venkateshwara Constructions"

M/S. GPNR CONSTRUCTIONS vs UNION OF INDIA

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 863 • India - High Court of Karnataka

MR R DEVDAS, J

LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA CONSTRUCTIONS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, in Civil Misc.Petition No.422/2022 dated 18.11.2022. 5.

MR.S.SURESH, PIP vs M/S SHREE LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA CONSTRUCTIONS

• India - National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

M/S SHREE LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA CONSTRUCTIONSREP.BY ITS PROP.SRI E.VENKATESHWAR, H.NO.1-7-1002/2, RAM NAGAR, HYDERABAD. ... Venkateswara Constructions, rep. by its Prop: Sri E.Venkateshwar, H.No.1-7-1002/2, Ramnagar, HyderabadComplainant And M/s Shree Lakshmi

M/S SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA CONSTRUCTIONS vs BHARATHI AIR TEL LTD., (EARSTWHILE BHARTHI TELENET

• India - Principal Bench at Bengaluru

1 M s Lakshmi Adarsh Constructions vs Sri Natarau Anil Kumar

• India - National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

2.VPC Joshi S/o Subba Rao, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Partner of M/s Lakshmi Adarsh Constructions H.No.8-3-169/148/402, Siddarthanagar Hyderabad-500038 3.P.Somaiah Chowdary S/o M.Venkateshwara Rao Aged about 43 years,Occ: Partner of ... -500038 3.P.Somaiah Chowdary S/o M.Venkateshwara Rao Aged about 43 years,Occ: Partner of M/s Lakshmi Adarsh Constructions, H.No.8-3-169/148/402, Siddarthanagar, Hyderabad-500038 ....

Sri. Nataru Anil Kumar, S/o. N. Audiseshaiah, Rep. by his GPA Holder Sri N. Audiseshaiah, S/o. Late N. Chennaiah, Age 60 Yrs, vs 1. M/s. Laxshmi Adarsh Constructions, a Firm registered as per te provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1952, Having is office at H.No.8-3-169/148/402, Siddhartha Nagar, Hyderabad-500038-A.P.

• India - National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

M/S GVR CONSTRUCTIONS vs UNION BANK OF INDIA

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 14501 • India - Principal Bench at Bengaluru

P. Hussaini vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal

2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 5442 • India - High Court of Andhra Pradesh

D. RAMESH, J

But the 6th respondent had not submitted any explanation and proceeded with construction work. After that, the 3rd respondent had issued a show cause notice on 20.8.2016 to the 6th respondent directing to submit explanation. ... When the 3rd respondent had not received any explanation from 6th respondent, 3rd respondent on 31.8.2016 reiterated the earlier order of cancellation and also cautioned 6th respondent for proceeding with the construction activity. ... But the 6th respondent is trying to proceed with construction. Hence the writ p....

Doguparthy Swami Gupta Siddhanti VS Venkateswara punishing House, Eluru, firm Managing Partner etc.

1965 0 Supreme(AP) 188 • India - Andhra Pradesh

NARASIMHAM

for the year Dhurmukhi (1956-57) and the Siddhanti took away the printed almanacs from the printer, Pali Perraju, Proprietor of Lakshmi ... for the year Dhurmukhi (1956-57) and the Siddhanti took away the printed almanacs from the printer, Pali Perraju, Proprietor of Lakshmi ... for the year Dhurmukhi (1956-57) and the Siddhanti took away the printed almanacs from the printer, Pali Perraju, Proprietor of Lakshmi ... I request to give Rs. 1500, (in words Rupees fifteen hundred only) regarding this baratam to Pali Perraj, Proprietor, #HL_ST....

Lakshmi Venkateshwara Borewells Shidlaghatta VS State of Karnataka

2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 148 • India - Karnataka

B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

It also determined that the drilling of Borewells did not fall under the definition of 'Construction Works' as per the Act. ... The court also determined that the drilling of Borewells did not fall under the definition of 'Construction Works' as per the Act ... Borewells, and as is obvious from the aforesaid provision, the work of drilling Borewells cannot be construed as 'construction works'. ... The phrase 'construction works' is defined under the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procu....

Padmavathi Sametha Venkateshwara Swamy Viswasanthi Seva Samithi, Gorantla VS State of A. P. , Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments. IV) Department

2024 0 Supreme(AP) 352 • India - Andhra Pradesh

K. MANMADHA RAO

Infact in the said premises there are two temples: (1) Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Venkateswara Swamy Temple, (2) Sri Sitaramanjaneya Swamy Temple. ... He further submits that the 2nd respondent ought to have seen that Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Venkateshwara Swamy funds is developed by the petitioner committee from the funds of the first temple and the endowments department never made any efforts to develop the same and ought to have considered ... Thereafter, the 2nd respondent appointed the above said single tr....

Filter by Legal Phrase

Legal Issues on Supreme Today AI

Approbate and Reprobate: Key Legal Doctrine Explained Vague Threatening Phone Calls: Why They Fail in Court Does SCC Own Copyright on Full Text Judgments? G.O. Ms No. 108: TN Salesman & Packer Recruitment Rules Article 226 vs 227: Key Differences in High Court Powers Judgments on One-Time GNA Charges in India TIP: Judicial vs Executive Magistrate Rules Explained Can a Sole Dissenting Member Block Society Redevelopment? How to Sue Fake Facebook Accounts for Defamation in India Illustrations: Person Dominating Will in Indian Law Perusal in Court Orders: What It Means in Law Litigant Vigilance: Essential Duty in Court Proceedings What to Do If Company Suit Signatory Dies Renting House Without Rent Agreement in India: Risks Stay on Money Realization After Ejectment: Is It Possible?