{"id":42093,"date":"2001-02-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-02-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001"},"modified":"2018-11-07T19:23:59","modified_gmt":"2018-11-07T13:53:59","slug":"ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001","title":{"rendered":"Ramachandra Reddy & Co vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 27 February, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramachandra Reddy & Co vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 27 February, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: Pattanaik<\/div>\n
Bench: U.C.Banerjee, Brijesh Kumar, G.B.Pattanaik<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 9405  of  1995.\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nRAMACHANDRA REDDY & CO.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF A.P.  & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t27\/02\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nU.C.Banerjee, Brijesh Kumar, G.B.Pattanaik\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
PATTANAIK,J.\n<\/p>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      Claimants\t are the appellants against the judgment  of
\nthe Andhra Pradesh High Court, arising out of an arbitration
\nproceeding.   The North work excavation of approach  channel
\nof  Srisailam Project had been awarded to the claimants\t for
\ndifferent  amounts indicated in the contract.  The  contract
\nitself\tcontained  an  arbitration  clause.   Dispute  being
\nraised\ton different items of claim, those disputes had been
\nreferred  to  a\t panel\tof  arbitrators\t and  the  panel  of
\narbitrators,  ultimately  passed an award where-under  claim
\nItems  1, 2 and 3 stood rejected.  So far as claim item\t No.
\n4  is  concerned, the same was allowed in part.\t Claim\tItem
\nNo.  5 was claim of interest and the arbitrators allowed the
\ninterest  @  12 per cent per annum over the amount  awarded.
\nClaim  Item No.\t 6 was the claim of cost and the arbitrators
\ndirected  that\teach party will bear its own cost.   Against
\nthe  award of the arbitrators, rejecting claim item Nos.  1,
\n2 and 3, the claimants filed an objection in the Civil Court
\nand  sought  for remittance under Section 16 on\t the  ground
\nthat  the  arbitrators have left undetermined the claims  of
\nthe  claimants on item No.1, 2 and 3 on an erroneous view of
\nthe relevant clauses of the agreement.\tClaimants also filed
\nan  application\t under\tSection\t 14 to\tmake  the  award  in
\nrelation  to  claim allowed by the arbitrators as a rule  of
\nCourt.\t The  State of Andhra Pradesh also filed a  petition
\nunder  Section\t30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside\tthat
\npart  of the award which allowed the claim of the contractor
\nto  the extent of Rs.57,000\/-.\tAll these applications which
\nwere  registered  as  O.S.   No.   1094\/86,  O.P.104\/87\t and
\nO.P.424\/87  were  disposed  of by a common judgment  of\t the
\nlearned\t Vth Additional Judge, City Civil Court,  Hyderabad.
\nThe  said learned Judge made the award in relation to  claim
\nitem  No.4  a rule of Court.  But he set aside the award  in
\nrelation  to  claim item Nos.  1,2,3 and 5and  remitted\t the
\nsame  for  reconsideration  to\tthe  panel  of\tarbitrators.
\nAgainst the aforesaid Judgment of the Additional Judge, City
\nCivil  Court,  remitting the disputes\/claims in relation  to
\nclaim  items 1, 2, 3 and 5 to the panel of arbitrators,\t the
\nState  of Andhra Pradesh preferred appeals under Section  39
\nof  the\t Arbitration  Act.  The High Court by  the  impugned
\njudgment set aside the order of the Additional Judge, so far
\nit  relates to remitting the claim item No.  1 to the  panel
\nof  arbitrators\t for reconsideration.  So far as claim\titem
\nNos.   2  and  3 are concerned, the High  Court\t upheld\t the
\ndirection  of the Additional Judge, but, appointed a retired
\nChief  Justice\tof the Court as arbitrator to arbitrate\t the
\nclaim items 2 and 3 and a part of claim item No.  5 relating
\nto  interest.  In this appeal filed by the claimants, we are
\nconcerned  only\t with claim item No.1.\tThe legality of\t the
\naward  in  relation to claim items 2 and 3 are\tthe  subject
\nmatter of an appeal, which is pending in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
      Claim  Item No.  1 relates to increase in quantity  of
\nhard  rock  abnormally and on this head, the  claimants\t had
\nclaimed Rs.93, 76, 990\/-.  The claimants statement that was
\nfiled before the arbitrator, makes out a vague claim on this
\nscore  without\tindicating  the\t basis\t for  the  claim  in
\nquestion.   In\trespect of the aforesaid quantity  of  extra
\nexcavation  on\thard rock, the State of Andhra\tPradesh\t had
\nmade  the  payment  in terms of Clause 25 of Schedule  C  of
\nSection\t 2  of\tthe agreement as per its letter\t dated\t21st
\nOctober,  1981.\t  Notwithstanding  the\t said  payment,\t the
\nclaimants  had\tmade the extra claim on the ground that\t the
\nquantity  of  excavation of hard rock being abnormally\thigh
\nand  much  beyond the anticipated quantity indicated in\t the
\nagreement  and\teven much in excess of the so-called 25\t per
\ncent  of the work as per the GOMS No.  2289 dated 12.6.1968,
\nthe claimants are entitled to a separate rate for such extra
\nexcavation  and\t the  arbitrators failed to  exercise  their
\njurisdiction  in  not  granting the claim and on  the  other
\nhand,  rejecting  the same.  The High Court in the  impugned
\njudgment  however, referring to clause 59 of the  agreement,
\nwhich  deals with delay and extension of time and in view of
\nthe  letters of the Superintending Engineer dated 15th July,
\n1980   and   19th  May,\t 1983,\t came  to  hold\t  that\t the
\ncontractor-claimant  will not be entitled to be paid at\t any
\nhigher\t rate  for  such   additional  excavation  work\t and
\naccordingly  set aside the order of the learned trial Judge,
\nremitting  the claim item No.  1 for being re-disposed of by
\nthe arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.   P.P.Rao,  the learned senior counsel,  appearing
\nfor  the appellant, contended that the High Court  committed
\nserious\t error\tin referring to clause 59 as well as to\t the
\nletter\tdated 15th July, 1980 and 19th May, 1983, in  coming
\nto  the conclusion that the claimant-contractor will not  be
\nentitled  to be paid at any higher rate for the extra amount
\nof  excavation made by him.  Mr.  Rao further submitted that
\nunder GOMS No.\t2289 dated 12.6.1968, a deviation limit upto
\na  maximum of 25 per cent being permissible, for any work in
\nexcess\tof that limit, the contractor is entitled to claim a
\nhigher rate and that being the position, the arbitrators had
\ncommitted  an  error apparent on the award in  refusing\t the
\nclaim  and  the High Court committed error in setting  aside
\nthe  order of remittance passed by the Additional Judge.  In
\nsupport\t of  this  contention, reliance was  placed  on\t the
\njudgment  of  this Court in the case of S.  Harcharan  Singh
\nvs.  Union of India,<\/a> 1990(4) SCC 647.  Mr.  Rao also further
\nurged  that in view of the recommendations of the  Executive
\nEngineer  notwithstanding  the\tcontinued objection  of\t the
\nclaimant, expressing inability to continue with the abnormal
\nincrease  in the hard rock excavation, it must be held\tthat
\nthe  payment  at a higher rate for the additional or  excess
\nquantity  of excavation was implied and failure on the\tpart
\nof the arbitrator to consider the same, constitutes an error
\non  the face of the award and as such the learned Additional
\nJudge\twas   justified\t  in   remitting  the\tmatter\t for
\nreconsideration\t  of  the  arbitrator.\t  Mr.\tRao   lastly
\nsubmitted  that\t for  this excess of  excavation  work,\t the
\ncontractor was entitled to be paid in accordance with Clause
\n63  of\tthe  agreement, which has not been  noticed  by\t the
\narbitrator  and\t adjudged  from that stand point,  the\tHigh
\nCourt  also  committed error in setting aside the  order  of
\nremittance made by the learned Additional Judge.\n<\/p>\n
      Ms.  K.  Amreswari, appearing for the respondent State
\nof  Andhra  Pradesh,  on the other hand contended  that\t the
\npower  of interference of the Court under Sections 30 and 33
\nas  well as under Section 16 is of a limited nature and\t the
\nCourt  would  be justified in interfering with the  reasoned
\naward  of an arbitrator, if the award contains any  apparent
\nerror  on the same.  If the impugned award is examined\tfrom
\nthe  aforesaid\tstand point, the conclusion is\tirresistible
\nthat  it  did  not  contain any error  and,  therefore,\t the
\ninterference of the Court was not warranted.  Ms.  Amreswari
\nfurther\t contended  that the claimants nowhere in the  claim
\npetition  had  made  out  a case  that\tfor  the  additional
\nquantity  of excavation work, they are entitled to the\trate
\nas  per\t clause 63 of the agreement which was urged for\t the
\nfirst time in this Court and, therefore, the said contention
\nshould\tnot be allowed to be raised.  Ms.  Amreswari further
\nurged  that clause 63 will have no application for the extra
\nitem of excavation made by the contractors since that clause
\napplies to any supplemental item, which are found essential,
\nincidental  and inevitable during the execution of the\twork
\nand  by no stretch of imagination, the additional excavation
\nwhich  is  the subject matter of claim in claim item No.   1
\ncan be held to be supplemental item.  Ms.  Amreswari further
\nsubmitted  that\t for this additional quantity of  excavation
\nthe  claimant having been paid for in accordance with clause
\n25  of the agreement, the further claim of the contractor is
\nnot  arbitrable\t at all and, High Court therefore was  fully
\njustified  in setting aside the order of remittance made  by
\nthe Additional Judge.  Ms.  Amreswari further contended that
\nthe  claim  for\t payment of higher rate for  the  work\tdone
\nbeyond\tthe  agreement is not at all sustainable in view  of
\nthe positive letter of the authorities dated 15th July, 1980
\nand  19th  May, 1983, while allowing extension of  time\t for
\ncompletion  of\tthe work, as has been held by this Court  in
\nthe  case of Ch.Ramalinga Reddy vs.  Superintending Engineer
\nand  Anr.<\/a>   1999(9) SCC 610, and, therefore, the High  Court
\nwas  fully  justified in interfering with the directions  of
\nthe  sub-  ordinate Judge in remitting the said\t claim\titem
\nNo.1   for  fresh  arbitration.\t   Mrs.\t  Amreswari   lastly
\nsubmitted  that\t a  bare scrutiny of the order\tof  the\t Vth
\nAdditional  Judge,  City Civil Court,  Hyderabad,  remitting
\nclaim  items  Nos.   1, 2 and 3\t for  reconsideration  would
\nindicate  that no reasons had been given for such remittance
\nand  on the face of it, the said judgment of the Civil Court
\ntantamounts  to\t gross error of jurisdiction in\t interfering
\nwith  an  award and transgressing the scope  and  limitation
\nprovided  under Sections 30 and 16 and, therefore, the\tHigh
\nCourt was justified in correcting the said error in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      Under the Arbitration Act, Section 16 is the provision
\nunder\twhich\tthe   Court  may   remit   the\t award\t for
\nreconsideration\t  of  an  arbitration\tand  necessity\t for
\nremitting  the\taward  arises when there are  omissions\t and
\ndefects in the award, which cannot be modified or corrected.
\nRemission  of an award is in the discretion of the Court and
\nthe  powers of the Court are circumscribed by the provisions
\nof Section 16 itself.  Ordinarily, therefore, a Court may be
\njustified  in remitting the matter if the arbitrator  leaves
\nany  of\t the  matters undetermined or a part of\t the  matter
\nwhich  had  not been referred to and answered and that\tpart
\ncannot\tbe  separated  from   the  remaining  part,  without
\naffecting  the decision on the matter, which was referred to
\narbitration or the award is so indefinite as to incapable of
\nexecution  or that the award is erroneous on the face of it.
\nDiscretion  having been conferred on the Court, to remit  an
\naward,\tthe  said discretion has to be judicially  exercised
\nand an appellate Court would not be justified in interfering
\nwith  the  exercise of discretion unless the discretion\t has
\nbeen  misused.\tWhat is an error apparent on the face of  an
\naward  which  requires\tto be corrected has  always  been  a
\nsubject\t matter of discussion.\tAn error of law on the\tface
\nof  the award would mean that one can find in the award or a
\ndocument  actually incorporated thereto stating the  reasons
\nfor a judgment some legal propositions which is the basis of
\nthe  award and which can be said to be erroneous.  Documents
\nnot  incorporated  directly  or indirectly  into  the  award
\ncannot\tbe  looked into for the purpose of finding  out\t any
\nalleged error.\tThe courts are not to investigate beyond the
\naward\tof  the\t arbitrators   and  the\t documents  actually
\nincorporated  therein and, therefore, when there would be no
\npatent\terror on the face of the award, it would not be open
\nfor  the court to go into the proceedings of the award.\t  If
\nthe  application  for  remittance  filed  by  the  claimants
\ninvoking  jurisdiction\tof  the court under  Section  16  is
\nexamined  from the aforesaid stand point and if the order of
\nthe  learned  Civil  Court, remitting claim Item No.   1  is
\ntested\tin  the\t light of the discussions  made\t above,\t the
\nconclusion  is irresistible that no case for remittance\t had
\nbeen  made  out\t and the learned trial Judge  exercised\t his
\ndiscretion  on\tthe grounds which does not come\t within\t the
\nfour-corners  of  the  provisions  of\tSection\t 16  of\t the
\nArbitration  Act.  In fact no reasons had been ascribed\t for
\ninterference with the award, rejecting claim Item No.  1 and
\nfor  remittance of the same.  The High Court being the Court
\nof appeal, was therefore, fully justified in exercise of its
\nappellate  power  in correcting the error made by the  Civil
\nJudge in remitting claim item No.  1.\n<\/p>\n
      Let  us  now examine the contentions of Mr.   P.P.Rao,
\nthe  learned  senior counsel, appearing for  the  appellant.
\nThe  learned counsels contention in fact centres round\tthe
\nquestion  as  to  whether  for the  additional\tquantity  of
\nexcavation  work,  the contractor would be entitled to at  a
\nhigher\trate in accordance with Clause 63 of the  agreement.
\nMrs.  Amreswari, appearing for the State was fully justified
\nin  her\t submissions  that this contention  had\t never\tbeen
\nraised\t either\t  before  the\tarbitrator  or\tbefore\t the
\nsubordinate  Judge  or even before the High Court.  In\tfact
\nthe  claim  petition filed before the arbitrator  is  rather
\ncryptic\t and absolutely vague, not indicating on what  basis
\nthe  additional claim is made, though the foundation for the
\nclaim  was there, namely there had been an increased  amount
\nof  excavation\twork  beyond the agreement.  It is  in\tthis
\nconnection,  Mr.   Rao had relied upon the two decisions  of
\nthis  Court  in the case of S.Harcharan Singh vs.  Union  of
\nIndia,<\/a>\t1990(4) SCC 647 and National Fertilizers vs.   Puran
\nChand Nangia<\/a> 2000(8) SCC 343.  But before examining the said
\ncontention, it would be appropriate for us to extract Clause
\n63,  which was the sheet anchor of the argument of Mr.\tRao.
\nClause 63 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
      Cl.63.   Payment\tfor  additions and  deductions\tfor
\nomissions:   (A)  The  contractor is bound  to\texecute\t all
\nsupplemental  items that are found essential, incidental and
\ninevitable during the execution of the work, at the rates to
\nbe  worked out as detailed below:  (a)For all items of\twork
\nin  excess  of\tthe quantities shown in schedule  A  of\t the
\ntender\tthe rates payable for such items shall be either the
\ntender rates or the standard schedule of rates for the items
\nplus  or minus the overall tender percentage accepted by the
\ncompetent  authority  which  ever  is  less.   (b)For  items
\ndirectly  deducible from similar items in the agreement, the
\nrates shall be derived by adding to or substracting from the
\nagreement rate of such similar items, the cost of difference
\nin  quantity of material or labour between the new items and
\nthe  similar  items  in\t the   agreement,  worked  out\twith
\nreference to the Schedule of rates adopted in the sanctioned
\nestimate  plus\tor  minus  the\toverall\t tender\t percentage.\n<\/p>\n
(c)For new items which do not correspond to any items in the
\nagreement, the rates shall be standard schedule rate plus or
\nminus  the over all tender percentage.\tThe terms  standard
\nschedule  of rates used in the above subclauses (a), (b)  &\n<\/p>\n
(c)  means  the\t schedule of rates on which  the  sanctioned
\nestimate  was  prepared.  (d)In the event of  the  Executive
\nEngineer  and the Contractor failing to agree on a rate\t for
\nsuch  additional  work, the Executive Engineer may,  at\t his
\noption\teither:\t  (i)employ other parties to carry  out\t the
\nadditional  work  in the same manner as provided  for  under
\nclause 48, or (ii)the contractor shall execute the work upon
\nwritten\t orders from the Executive Engineer and the cost  of
\nlabour\tand  materials\tplus 10 per cent  thereon  shall  be
\nallowed\t therefor, provided that the vouchers for the labour
\nand  materials\temployed  shall have been delivered  to\t the
\nExecutive  Engineer or his representative within seven\tdays
\nafter such work shall have been completed.  If the Executive
\nEngineer  considers that payment for such work on the  basis
\nof  the\t vouchers  presented is unduly high, he\t shall\tmake
\npayment\t in  accordance with such valuation as he  considers
\nfair  and reasonable and his decision to the matter shall be
\nfinal,\tif  the\t amount involved in  additional\t payment  is
\nRs.1000\t or less, for each occasion on which such additional
\nworks  shall  have been authorised.  If such amount  exceeds
\nRs.1000,  the contractor shall have the right to submit\t the
\nmatter\t to   arbitration  under   the\tprovisions  of\t the
\narbitration  clause  73.   (e)If,  in  the  opinion  of\t the
\nExecutive  Engineer  a rate for the additional work  is\t not
\ncapable\t of being properly arrived at prior to execution  of
\nwork,  or  if  the  work is not capable\t of  being  properly
\nmeasured,  then the cost and payment thereof shall be  dealt
\nwith as provided for in the preceding sub- clause (d)(ii).\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  case  of S.  Harcharan Singh  vs.   Union  of
\nIndia,<\/a>\t1990(4)\t SCC  647, on which Mr.\t  Rao  had  strongly
\nrelied\tupon,  this  Court  had\t quoted\t clause\t 12  of\t the
\nagreement  in  paragraph 8 of the judgment and referring  to
\nthe  standard  form of contract of the Central Public  Works
\nDepartment, specifically permitting for a limit of variation
\ncalled\tdeviation limit up to a maximum of 20 per cent, it
\nwas  held  that the contractor has to carry out the work  at
\nthe  rate stipulated in the contract upto such limit but for
\nwork  in excess of that limit he has to be paid at the rates
\nto  be determined in accordance with clause 12A, under which
\nthe  Engineer in-charge can revise the rates, having  regard
\nto  the prevailing market rates.  The Court also referred to
\nthe  letters of the Executive Engineers, the  Superintending
\nEngineer and the Additional Chief Engineer recommending that
\nthe  additional work may be confined to 20 per cent and\t for
\nthe  extra  quantity  of  additional work, he  may  be\tpaid
\nremuneration  at the increased rate taking into account\t the
\nincreased  cost\t of  the  execution of work  on\t account  of
\npeculiar  nature of the work.  We fail to understand how the
\naforesaid decision will be of any assistance to the claimant
\nin  the\t present case, where there is no clause like  Clause
\n12A  nor  is there any letter from the\tcompetent  authority
\nagreeing to payment at a higher rate for the additional work
\nbeyond\tthe limit of 25 per cent as provided under the\tGOMS
\nNo.2289 dated 12.6.1968.  Arbitrator being a creature of the
\nagreement,   unless   agreement\t  either   specifically\t  or
\ninferentially  provides for a higher rate to be awarded\t for
\nany  additional\t or excess work done by the  contractor,  it
\nwould not be permissible for the arbitrator to award for the
\nso-called  additional work at a higher rate.  In the case in
\nhand,  not  only  there\t is no\tletter\tfrom  the  competent
\nauthority,  namely  the\t Superintending\t Engineer  that\t the
\ncontractor  would  be  paid  at\t any  higher  rate  for\t the
\nadditional excavation of rock, though the Executive Engineer
\nhad  indicated that he has recommended to the Superintending
\nEngineer.    But  such\trecommendation\t of  the   Executive
\nEngineer,  who\twas not competent to decide the question  of
\nawarding a higher rate for the excess quantity of excavation
\nwill  not clothe any jurisdiction on the arbitrator to award
\nthe  contractor\t at a higher rate nor would it\tentitle\t the
\ncontractor to get a higher rate for the claim in question on
\nthe basis of agreement.\t Now coming to the very clause, upon
\nwhich  Mr.   Rao relied upon, we find that the\tsaid  clause
\nrelates\t  to  supplemental  item,   which  have\t been  found
\nessential, incidental and inevitable during the execution of
\nthe  work.  The excavation of hard rock cannot be held to be
\na  supplemental\t item and on the other hand, is an  item  of
\nwork  tendered and accepted, and as such clause 63 will have
\nno  application\t to the claim item No.1.  Mr.  Rao had\talso
\nrelied\tupon  the  decision  of\t  this\tCourt  in   National
\nFertilizers  vs.   Puran  Chand\t Nangia,<\/a>  2000(8)  SCC\t343,
\nwherein\t this  Court  had held that an interpretation  of  a
\nparticular  clause  of the agreement must be such, so as  to
\nbalance\t the  rights  of both parties and when\ta  variation
\nclause\tpermits\t the employer to make variation in the\twork
\nupto  a specified limit, beyond the said limit, the claimant
\ncould  be paid at a higher rate.  The Court in the aforesaid
\ncase  was  examining  the  principle  of  integrity  of\t the
\ncontract  and  refused\tto interfere with the  award  merely
\nbecause\t arbitrator  had  granted  an  escalation.   In\t the
\naforesaid  case, the Court was examining whether it would be
\npermissible  for  interfering  with  an award  which  was  a
\nnon-speaking  one merely because the arbitrator had  awarded
\nthe  claim  at an escalated rate for the excess quantity  of
\nwork  and  since the award itself was a non-speaking  award,
\nthe  court held that it is not permissible to probe into the
\nmental\tprocess\t of the arbitrator and then interfered\twith
\nthe same.  Then again the question of granting a higher rate
\nfor  any  extra quantity of work executed by the  contractor
\nwould  at all arise only when the contract provides for such
\nescalated  rate either expressly or by implication as in the
\ncase  of  S.   Harcharan Singh 1990(4) SCC  647,  where\t the
\ncompetent   authority\thad   agreed   for   the   same\t  by
\ncorrespondence.\t  But in the case in hand, when there is  no
\nsuch  acceptance by the competent authority, and there is no
\nprovision  in  the contract, permitting such escalated\trate
\nfor  the additional quantity of excavation made and in\tview
\nof  our\t rejecting  the contention raised on  the  basis  of
\nclause\t 63,  the  conclusion  is  irresistible\t  that\t the
\ncontractor  will  not be entitled to a higher rate  for\t the
\nadditional  excavation\twork and as such the High Court\t was
\nfully  justified in setting aside the direction of the trial
\njudge,\tremitting the claim item No.  1 for  reconsideration
\nand  we see no infirmity with the said direction of the High
\nCourt  to be interfered with.  We also find sufficient force
\nin  the\t submission  of Mrs.  Amreswari,  relying  upon\t the
\nletters\t of the competent authority, specifically intimating
\nthat the grant of extension of time will not in any way make
\nthe  contractor\t eligible  for\tany   extra  claim  due\t  to
\nescalation  in\trates of labour and materials or due to\t any
\nother  reasons\tunder any circumstances and the decision  of
\nthis  Court in Ramalinga Reddy, 1999(9) SCC 610 supports the
\naforesaid  contention.\tIn the aforesaid premises, we do not
\nfind  any merits in this appeal, requiring our\tinterference
\nwith  the  impugned judgment of the High Court.\t The  appeal
\nfails and is<\/p>\n
      dismissed\t but  in the circumstances there will be  no
\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramachandra Reddy & Co vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 27 February, 2001 Author: Pattanaik Bench: U.C.Banerjee, Brijesh Kumar, G.B.Pattanaik CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 9405 of 1995. PETITIONER: RAMACHANDRA REDDY & CO. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF A.P. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/02\/2001 BENCH: U.C.Banerjee, Brijesh Kumar, G.B.Pattanaik JUDGMENT: PATTANAIK,J. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamachandra Reddy & Co vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 27 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramachandra Reddy & Co vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 27 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-07T13:53:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramachandra Reddy & Co vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 27 February, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-07T13:53:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3672,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001\",\"name\":\"Ramachandra Reddy & Co vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 27 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-07T13:53:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramachandra Reddy & Co vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 27 February, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ramachandra Reddy & Co vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 27 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramachandra Reddy & Co vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 27 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-07T13:53:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramachandra Reddy & Co vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 27 February, 2001","datePublished":"2001-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-07T13:53:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001"},"wordCount":3672,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001","name":"Ramachandra Reddy & Co vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 27 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-07T13:53:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandra-reddy-co-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-27-february-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramachandra Reddy & Co vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 27 February, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42093","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42093"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42093\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}