High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Sree Gajanana Power Controls … vs Hubli Electricity Supply Co on 6 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Sree Gajanana Power Controls … vs Hubli Electricity Supply Co on 6 April, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA  

CIRCU§'¥' BENCH AT DHARWAI)  V V

DATED THIS THE 6371 DAY 09' APR:L..é§0§'~J.::  "

8E:'?oRE',_ .
I--§ON- gm: MR. .JUS."i'I(_3E A;'m' '.3 GU1smg:.1,':4_ 2

WRIT f~'E'£'I'l'I{)N No.3056":.,..fc>:a' 120673-£C§M"-- 'I' E§N}

BETWEEN :

M/S. SREE GAJANVANAA90vz.;ER"c:§3N'":'RQLs PVT: LTD.
COMPANY Rgr31'e;'r_r«:RE:j L§N?£)ER 'I"§{'EV .C{}MPAi'~IIES ACT
N01, swwc, '--4TH5;?1e}A~SE_, 1%?' Mam

KHB, YELAi!~iAr§'1fi.t2r>z  '

BANGALGMEV   _   ' -

BY ITS MAN.AGI--NCi*r {:;:RE:f'i*0.:2

S NAGARAJAAA   .. V 

s/0 LATE SE~RIYAPPA 

A332: 54.. YEARS._  PETITIONER

  §§'f 3.§§'£a.._{iARSH DESAI, A§3V.,)

1.  H§;H':5L§""ELECTRICI'I'Y SUPPLY COMPANY
{HESCGM) A WHOLLY OWNED GOVERNMENT
.A _ CF KARNATAKA UNDER'TAKiNG
V "--._REGIS'T'EREB UNDER' THE COMPANEES AC1'

 CORPORATE QFFICE, NAVANAGAR

i?'.B.RGA£), HUBLJ ---- 580 025
BY ETS MANAGENG QIRECTCR

V' 2. THE supskimgzmlma ENGINEER (EZLE)

PURCHASE fit. TENDERING
BURL,-I ELECTRECWY SUP¥'LY COMPANY



F-J

(HESCQM) A WHOLLY QWNEZD GOVERNMENT  
OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING   
REGISTEREB UNDER THE: COMPANIES  «  '~ ;_. 
CORPCZIRATE QFFICE, NAVANAGAR ' "  
RB. ROAD, HUBLI - 580 0:25

{BY 31%;. M B KANAVI, ADV. FOR éirg, :53; 

RE(3EiVEli))

TEES PETINQN FILED Lxgqjm ART~§CLL~7' S '.§£4Z6H& 22?

09' COSNTETUTION OE INfiIA_..__ 'j1>vR;A¥;NG '1*O._Qzg,AsH Tm;
TERMIEQATIGN NOTECE 'QT. _«11«8«~{)_$VPA.SSED*BY THE 2%
RESPONDENT AT ANNE;xU.s2h:_gv%.i.AND-- }Qi!AsH THE TENDER

N€3TIF¥CA’I’IOI\E DT.28~8–2O(;’*-8″‘1ISS¥}1¥:F;r,_’_’BY THE 2%
RESF’ONDE§’~IT AT. ;mNE;:»:LIR;::–x.._~.__ ‘

‘I’§{I_S s;v,1¥=’*; éfi:::;j;r_M1:s}”C._§i)AN’ :r..é ),:a§ s£>Rm«:;2s THES DAY, THE
COURT MADETH E7]F’GL£()’¥5JING:

u §§BER

_{ ‘Without ixifisra the factual aspects of the matter,

su fii: “§;s;7gy, gursuamt is the interim mtier grantad by

“‘*ffhi4*’=7__ 26.9.2008 as an interim msasure,

rcs§snc3V_iér1t~3:”‘ Wait directeé to permit ths petifioner ta

“‘:1fidefiakE and eemplete the remaining labour p{}I’tiGI1 of {hit

%55fi:r§:..«A”with;’n_ a periafi of two menths fmm that day; faiki” ‘ 1%

.,}¥}t1ich it was 09:33″; for the I’6Sp{3};1€§€I);’£S to initiaifi acti-mg

V’ against {ha petiticzner in ‘;€::rm3 of the ttamract, Erzdeed, even

aftfir :::<:pir}:' 9? twa mutfihsg the pstitiener has 110%. $663 able

/.

to Camply the direetitim issued by this Ceurta We art:
2069, whée::h shmfid nscessarily mean that
haé Six months time to Cempletc the work. ”

been dame. Another a§p11’cati0:(1 V3′;-S3″”II3..5,1’¢1i{‘3 V

iiizzzfi ta comply with the: 011161’ ciatedi”-26}’_( )9.’L29;{)8, ‘ ‘

2. Mr. Harsh Desai, 1_e_:_;§i:1_mi._V¢c:ui1se1:app%:aIi11g for
the petitioaer submits V1:’»:-33′; }3§§*£»£Vti(;1: ;§:1fi’isbb in the procsss of

acquirillg necessazy :iI1£;as:1c.r§1ciu1feL’_f(§’i*’ the Work.

}~{ez1ce§” S6§1€.:\:j;n01;é:’§V «::.:1a3’« BE%’ Vyvgrantcé to complete the
werly ,,,_A’I’:13._.’-3 ViSv._.Vé;p1:$g:sed by the iearxzttd counsel

appeaxing xfiaré rcspgnédxfiét
§11f:ie::i€1, the oréer passed by this Court an

26.f}§.?{}{}8′ it.§e1f is compiett: sorder, in as much as, if the

Wéi51g«iS”;§é*t.C§§t1}§1€teé within two months it was open fer {ha

I3f3Sf~’1′}I}i§.éI.}.T(;S’.V’ to initiate approyriate action against this

. _ g:~:i:i*..:i_’t’:ite:>::;h'<:;:3:¢§ in isssrms of E116: Cazfmract. E! is 3230 ts be naticed

' "f_1;:;3:i–A'{}f1e respenéants have not iizzitiatad any action as against

-~.{EV1e gstitionezg :mtwitI:standi13g the fact that {hit time


/./7