Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Suptd.Engineer Public Health Nellore vs H.S. Bhatt And Another on 2 July, 2025
Author: R.Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI .
WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4055 OF 1993
AND
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1251 OF 1993
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4055 OF 1993:
APHC010028651993
Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, aggrieved by the Order, dated
08-04-1993 passed in O.P.No.56 of 1992, on the file of the Subordinate
Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Superintending Engineer
Public Health, Mulapet, Nellore-3.
...Respondent/Petitioner
AND
1. H.S.Bhatt, S/o.Ramabhatta, Hindu, 66 years, Retired Chief Engineer, R/o.599, 10"" Cross, Jayanagar, Block West, Bangalore.
...Petitioner/Respondent
2. J.Kodandarami Reddy, S/o.Ranga Reddy, Hindu, 50 years. Engineering Contractors, R/o.Padmalaya, Saraswatinagar, Nellore-524003.
...Respondent/Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 1995 fCMP 888 OF 1995^ Petition filed under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of E.P.No.112 of 1994 in O.P.No.56 of 1992 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Nellore, pending disposal of the above C.R.P. lA NO: 2 OF 1995 fCMP 4325 OF 1995t Petition filed under Section 148 read with Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extent the time limit stipulated in the Order dated 31-01-1995 in C.M.P.No.888 of 1995 in C.R.P.No.4055 of 1993 by another three months i.e. upto the end of June, 1995, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition.
lA NO: 3 OF 1995fCMP 8703 OF 19951 Petition filed under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to modify the Order, dated 31-01-1995 passed in CMP No.888 of 1995 in CRP No.4055 of 1993 as subsequently extended in CMP No.4325 of 1995, dated 24-04-1995, pending disposal of the above C.R.P. 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.Vishnu Teja, Government Pleader Counsel for the Respondent No.1:-
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, Senior Counsel appearing for Smt Sodum Anvesha CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1251 OF 1993:
APHC010297721993 Appeal filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, aggrieved by the Order and Decree, dated 08-04-1993 passed in O.P.No.81 of 1992, on the file of the Sub-Court, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health, Mulapet, Nellore-524003.
...Appellant(Petitioner) AND
1. J.Kodandarami Reddy, S/o.Ranga Reddy, Hindu, aged about 47 years.
Engineering Contractors, R/o.Padmalaya, Saraswati Nagar, Nellore- 524003.
2. H.S.Bhatt, S/o.Ramabhatta, Hindu, aged about 66 years, Retired Chief Engineer, R/o.599, 10*^ Cross, Jayanagar, 7*^ Block West, Bangalore.
... Respondents (Respondents) 4 (2" respondent herein Is not necessary party to this C.M.A) Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T.Vishnu Teja, Government Pleader Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, Senior Counsel appearing for Smt Sodum Anvesha Counsel for the Respondent No.2:-
The Court made the following:
APHC010028651993 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3541] (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY.THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4055/1993 & CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL N0.1251 OF 1993 Between:
1. SUPTD.ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH NELLORE, -
...PETITIONER AND
1. H S BHATT AND ANOTHER,-
...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to lA NO: 1 OF 1995rCMP 888 OF 1995 2 RRR,J & JS,J CRP.No.4055 of 1993 & CMA.No. 1251 of 1993 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased lA NO: 2 OF 1995rCMP 4325 OF 1995 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased LA NO: 3 OF 1995rCMP 8703 OF 1995 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased |A NO: 1 OF 1996(CMP 19643 OF 199fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased lA NO: 1 OF 1997rCMP 6881 OF 1997 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased lA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRPMP 4685 OF 2nifi 3 RRR,J & JS,J CRP.No.4055 of 1993 & CIVIA.No.l251 of 1993 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased fix an early date for hearing of the CRP lA NO: 3 OF 2016(CRPMP 19730 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.6666/THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent:
1.989/S RASHOK 2.11061/B SRINARAYANA 3.3984/S JANARDHAN REDDY 4.3472A/R REDDY KOWURI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1251/1993 Between:
1. SUPDT ENGINEER,NELLORE, -
...APPELLANT AND
1. J KODANDA RAMI REDDY AND ANOTHER, -
...RESPONDENT 4 RRR,J & JS,J CRP.No.4055 of 1993 & CMA.No. 1251 of 1993-
Appeal Under Section against orders lA NO: 1 OF 2000fCMP 5446 OF 2000 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased lA NO: 1 OF 2016(CMAMP1066 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased fix an early date for hearing of the appeal lA NO: 3 OF 2016fCMAMP 23203 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Appellant:
1.SODUM ANVESHA 2.6666/THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent:
1.12096/C SUBODH
2. SODUM ANVESHA 3.3472/V R REDDY KOWURI 5 RRR,J & JS,J CRP.No.4055 of 1993 & CMA.No.l251 of 1993 The Court made the following Order:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) (On remand from the Hon'ble Supreme Court) The Superintending Engineer (Employer), Public Health, Nellore issued a tender, dated 31.03.1987, for construction of a Summer Storage Tank at the site of Kothamamidipalem tank of 2287 million liters capacity including earth work excavation and formation of bunds revetment inside the tank etc. The 2""' respondent, in CRP.No.4055 of 1993 (hereinafter called 'the contractor') was the successful bidder for this tender.
Subsequently, an agreement, dated 22.06.1987, was executed between the contractor and the employer. The salient features of the contract was that the value of the contract Rs. 1,57,60,000/- and the entire contract was to be executed and completed within three years,
2. it is the admitted case on both sides that the major part of the work had been completed by 20.07.1989 itself. In October, 1989 the contractor wanted to withdraw from the work on the ground that he was proposing to contest in the General Elections and the existence of the contract would bar him from such participation in the General Elections.
3. Thereafter, some disputes appear to have arisen between the contractor and the employer due to which the contractor, in terms of the agreement, sought reference of 14 claims to arbitration as these claims have already been rejected by the employer. As the appointment 6 RRR,J & JS,J CRP.No.4055 of 1993 & CMA.No.l251 of 1993 of the arbitrator was not being done, the contractor moved O.P.No.62 of 1990 before the civil court. The same came to be allowed on 25.03.1991 and the arbitrator entered reference on 11.04.1991. After considering the material placed before him, by both sides, the arbitrator passed an Award, dated 08.06.1992. In this Award, the arbitrator considered 14 claims made by the contractor and allowed four claims namely claims 2, 3, 4 and 9 while rejecting six claims. Claims 11 to 14, which dealt with interest were allowed or rejected on the basis of the claims to which they were related.
4. After passing of the Award, the arbitrator moved O.P.No.56 of 1992 for making the award a Rule of Court. The employer moved O.P.No.81 of 1992 for setting aside the award. By a common order, dated 08.04.1993, O.P.No.56 of 1992 was allowed and O.P.No.81 of 1992 was dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders, the employer moved C.M.A.No.1251 of 1993 against the order in O.P.No.81 of 1992 and C.R.P.No.4055 of 1993 against the order in O.P.No.56 of 1992. Apart from this, the employer also moved C.R.P.No.134 of 1995 against the order, dated 25.03.1991, in O.P.No.62 of 1990 on the ground that the disputes were not amenable to arbitration and the arbitrator could not have been appointed.
7RRR,J & JS,J CRP.No.4055 of 1993 & CMA.No.l251 of 1993
5. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh had allowed C.R.P.No.134 of 1995 on 05.10.1999 with an option to the contractor to convert O.P.No.62 of 1990 into a regular suit for adjudication of the claims. Consequent to this order, C.M.A.No.1251 of 1993 and C.R.P.No.4055 of 1993 came to be allowed by the erstwhile High Court of A.P on 05.10.1999. The contractor initially moved review Applications bearing I.A.No.5446 of 1993 and I.A.No.5447 of 1993 against the order, dated 05.10.1999. These reviews came to be dismissed on 28.04.2000. Aggrieved by these orders, the contractor moved to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal Nos. 1401 to 1405 of 2002, which came to be allowed on the ground that the arbitration application was maintainable and the appointment of arbitrator could not be faulted. Consequent to this order, CRP.No.4055 of 1993 and .C.M.A.No.1251 of 1993 were remanded back to this Court for adjudication.
6. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 11.11.2010, the aforesaid C.R.P.No.4055 of 1993 and C.M.A.No.1251 of 1993 are being taken up for hearing. Heard the learned Government pleader for the employer and Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the contractor.
7. The claims which are now under consideration are claim Nos.2, 3, 4 and 9. Claim No.2 relates to conveyance of un-useful and garbage soil from the tank bed to outside the bund area. It appears that a 8 RRR,J & JS,J CRP.No.4055 of 1993 & CMA.No.l251 of 1993 supplemental agreement dated 14.07.1998 was executed. As per the terms of this agreement, the contractor was to be paid an amount of Rs.8.62 ps. per cubic meter of material conveyed. However, the contractor claimed higher rate on the ground that the material was moved to a far more distant point than the point fixed under the supplemental agreement. The arbitrator granted a rate of Rs.24.50 ps per cubic meter. This was disputed by the employer on the ground that the rate was already fixed under the supplemental agreement and a new rate could not have been decided. The trial Court agreed with the finding, of the Arbitrator, that the garbage and soil which was to be deposited on the outer slope on the bund had to be moved further and as such, the additional movement from the outer slope to the place where the garbage soil was deposited would fall outside the supplemental agreement and an equitable rate would have to be given.
8. Claim No.3 related to payment of extra rate towards consolidation charges for using a ten ton power roller in lieu of 2 ton hand rollers. According to the agreement, the contractor was to be paid Rs.10 per cubic meter. However, the arbitrator awarded an additional amount of Rs.3/- over and above the agreed rate. The contention of the employer was that the agreement required usage of two ton hand rollers and the employer had never asked the contractor to use a 10 ton power roller.
9RRR,J & JS,J CRP.No.4055 of 1993 & CMA.No. 1251 of 1993 The trial Court agreed with the finding of the arbitrator that the consolidation required by the employer would not be possible with a two ton roller and the same could have been done only with a 10 ton roller. It may also be noted the arbitrator is himself an experienced Engineer with experience in these kinds of civil works.
9. The learned Government Pleader would dispute this issue by relying upon the clause contained in page 127 and 128 of the agreement as well as clause 6 contained in Schedule-E to the agreement. In the clause set out at page 128, it was agreed that the consolidation would conducted by using two ton hand roller while clause 6 of Schedule-E clearly stipulates that the contractor had inspected the site and had satisfied himself with the scope of the work before tendering for the work.
The learned Government Pleader would contend that in such circumstances, the plea of the contractor that two ton roller would not be sufficient and 10 ton power roller is necessary for such consolidation could not have been accepted by the arbitrator.
10. As pointed out by Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contractor, the arbitrator is an experienced Engineer who had supervised civil works of the nature involved in the present contract. It appears that the claim was awarded only after the arbitrator had satisfied himself that a two ton roller was not sufficient for 10 RRR,J & JS,J CRP.No.4055 of 1993 & CMA.No. 1251 of 1993 Obtaining necessary consolidation. It was only after the arbitrator had satisfied himself that he appears to have passed an award in favour of the contractor.
11. Claim No.4 is a claim for payment of equitable price in the change of scope of work under item No.3 of Schedule-A of the agreement. This claim was accepted to the extent of award of Rs.33 per cubic meter for quantity of Rs.4,46,961 cubic meters of work executed under item No.3 of Schedule-A. This claim relates to the leads to convey soil required for formation of the bund. The arbitrator found that under the agreement the length contemplated were 12 leads and 3 lifts which were said to be an average length. However, the actual leads executed by the contractor ranged from 4 to 42 leads. In such circumstances, the arbitrator had granted additional amounts. This award was accepted and confirmed by the trial Court. The learned Government Pleader would contend that the contracts stipulated a rate of rs.135 per 10 cubic meters which would amount to Rs. 13.50 per cubic meter. In the absence of anything to the contrary, the arbitrator could not have passed an award against the rate fixed under the agreement.
12. The trial Court accepted the award on the ground that the soil had to be moved far greater length and the same was over and above 11 RRR,J & JS,J CRP.No.4055 of 1993 & CMA.No.l251 of 1993 the lengths contemplated under the agreement and as such, additional amounts could be paid.
13. In claim No.9, the contractor claimed that men, machinery and organization of the contractor had been kept idle for extended periods of time, on account of the failure of the employer in arranging for prompt removal of electrical towers from the work site. The arbitrator against the claim of Rs.61,12,172/- had awarded a sum of Rs.28 lakhs.
This award was assailed by the employer on the ground that the period set out for the contract had not expired and since the majority of the work was completed within a period of two years against the contractual period of three years, there could be no claim in the nature of a claim for compensation for idle charges for men, machinery and organization. The trial Court, when the same was assailed, upheld the award on the ground that the contractor could not take up work, on account of non removal of the electric poles and as such, the contractor was entitled for the period for which his men and machinery had been kept idle. The trial Court also noticed the fact that arbitrator had taken into account the list of machinery which had been furnished by the contractor to the employer and the admission of the Superintending Engineer, before the arbitrator, regarding the furnishing of such a list.
12RRR,J & JS,J CRP.No.4055 of 1993 & CMA.No.l251 of 1993
14. The learned Government Pleader assails the award of the above amounts, and the orders of the trial Court affirming such an award by the arbitrator. The learned Government Pleader would contend that all these claims relate to rates applicable to particular types of works, for which the rate had already been fixed in the contract. He would contend that any violation of such a rate would amount to going against the contract and the same is impermissible in arbitration. The learned Government Pleader would contend that the arbitrator being a creature of the agreement, could not have gone above and beyond the scope of the agreement and the rates fixed under the said agreement.
15. As rightly pointed out by Sri P. Veera Reedy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contractor, the arbitrator had differentiated between works carried out in accordance with the agreement and supplemental agreement and the works which went beyond these agreements. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the arbitrator had given a clear finding that the amounts claimed by the contractor, related to works which do not fall within the scope of the agreement inasmuch as the movement of soil and other excavated material was stipulated at a shorter distance under the agreement but the contractor ended up moving the material etc., far beyond the designated spot. In such circumstances, it would be permissible for the arbitrator to 13 RRR,J & JS,J CRP.No.4055 of 1993 & CMA.No.l251 of 1993 award compensation for the additional work. Similarly, the learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the usage of a 10 ton power roller in the place of a two ton roller was necessary in view of the soil conditions and the arbitrator who was an experienced Engineer after considering the soil condition etc., had come to the right conclusion the two ton rollers would not be sufficient for achieving the necessary compacting of the soil. In such circumstances, the award of additional amounts for usage of a 10 ton power roller cannot be disputed.
16. The learned Government Pleader relied upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandra Reddy & Co., vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.,^ The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atlanta Limited through its Manufacturing Director vs. Union of India rep.by Chief Engineer Military Engineering Service^., NTPC Limited vs. Deconar Services Private Limited^, Kwality Manufacturing Corporation vs. Central Warehousing Corporation"*., State of Rajasthan vs. Puri Constructions Company Limited and Another®.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramachandra Reddy & Co., vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., had held that an '(2001) 4 see 241 ^ (2022) 3 see 739 (paras 13, 17, 19 to 22) ^(2021) 19 see 694 (paras 11 to 13, 19 and 26) '' (2009) 5 see 142 (para 10) ® (1994) 6 see 485 (paras 26 to 28 and 30 to 32) 14 RRR,J & JS,J CRP.No.4055 of 1993 & CMA.No.l25] of 1993 arbitrator being creature of the agreement, unless the agreement either specifically or inferentially provides for a higher rate to be awarded for any additional or excess work done by the contractor, it would not be permissible for the arbitrator to award for the so called additional work at a higher rate.
18. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel were to the effect that the award of an arbitrator should not be interfered with lightly. It is only when there is total unreasonableness in the award or where there is an error on the face of the record or where the arbitrator has misconducted himself would the court be interferes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that since the arbitrator is the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties, it would not be open to the parties to challenge the award on the ground that the arbitrator has arrived at his own conclusion or has failed to appreciate the facts.
19. In the present case, the arbitrator took the view that the claims in the four claims which were allowed, related to work which went beyond the scope of the agreement and that such additional work fell outside the scope of the agreement and compensation for such additional work requires to be paid to the contractor. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid cases, the view of the arbitrator can be 15 RRR,J & JS,J CRP.No.4055 of 1993 & CMIA.No.l251 of 1993 interfered with only it is found to be a totally and wholly unreasonable view.
20. The contention of the employer is that, the scope of work was set out and the consideration to be paid was also set out, in terms of the rate fixed, under the agreement. The contractor should have been awarded additional consideration, if any, for additional work at the rate fixed under the agreement. Variation of the rate would amount to change in terms of the agreement and the same is not permissible as the Arbitrator, as a creature of the agreement cannot go against the terms of the agreement. However, the Arbitrator took the view that the work done by the contractor was not additional work, but work done beyond the egreement. The Arbitrator took the view that it was not extra material which was excavated or transported, but material being transported beyond the distance fixed under the agreement. He therefore held that the contractor is entitled to additional rates for the work done. This Court, after going through the material placed before this Court, including the contract, the award of the arbitrator, as well as the judgment of the trial Court, is of the view that the findings given by the arbitrator are a reasonable view of the facts and law. Once this Court holds that a view of the arbitrator is a reasonable view which does not violate the terms of the 16 RRR,J & JS,J CRP.No.4055 of 1993 & CMA.No.l251 of 1993 agreement, it would not be permissible for the Court to interfere with any part of this award.
21. In the circumstances, nothing further survives either in the Civil Revision petition or the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
22. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.4055 of 1993 and C.M.A.No.1251 of 1993 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To.
1. The Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
2. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
3. Subordinate Judge (Senior Division), Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
(With records)
4. One CC to Smt Sodum Anvesha, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CCs to the Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. [OUT]
6. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of AP at Amaravati.
7. Two CD Copies BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED:02/07/2025 COMMON ORDER & DECREE CRP NO. 4055 OF 1993 AND CMA NO. 1251 OF 1993 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS AND DISMISSING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS APHC010028651993 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH S AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4055 OF 199.3 Between;
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health, Mulapet, Nellore-3.
...Respondent/Petitioner AND
1. H.S.Bhatt, S/o.Ramabhatta, Hindu, 66 years. Retired Chief Engineer, R/o.599, 10'^ Cross, Jayanagar, 7*^" Block West, Bangalore.
...Petitioner/Respondent
2. J.Kodandarami Reddy, S/o.Ranga Reddy, Hindu, 50 years. Engineering Contractors, R/o.Padmalaya, Saraswatinagar, Nellore-524003.
...Respondent/Respondent Petition under Section 115 of CPC, aggrieved by the Order, dated 08- 04-1993 passed in O.P.No.56 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
This petition coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds "
of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri T.Vishnu Teja, Government Pleader for Petitioner, and of Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, Senior Advocate appearing for Smt Sodum Anvesha, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
1. That the Civil Revision Petition be and the same hereby is dismissed; and
2. That there be no order as to costs in this CRP.
Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ROW OFFICER To,
1. The Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
2. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
3. Subordinate Judge (Senior Division), Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
4. Two CD Copies BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED;02/07/2025 DECREE CRP NO. 4055 OF 1993 5 11 jut TKS o>h ^ . Current Secwon ^ te^ggPATCy^B DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS APHC010297721993 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1251 OF 1993 Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health, Mulapet, Nellore-524003.
...Appellant(Petitioner) AND
1. J.Kodandarami Reddy, S/o.Ranga Reddy, Hindu, aged about 47 years.
Engineering Contractors, R/o.Padmalaya, Saraswati Nagar, Nellore- 524003.
2. H.S.Bhatt, S/o.Ramabhatta, Hindu, aged about 66 years. Retired Chief Engineer, R/o.599, 10*" Cross, Jayanagar, 7*" Block West, Bangalore.
... Respondents (Respondents) (2"'* respondent herein Is not necessary party to this C.M.A) Appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, aggrieved by the Order and Decree, dated 08-04-1993 passed in O.P.No.81 of 1992, on the file of the Sub-Court, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
This petition coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri T.Vishnu Teja, Government Pleader for Appellant, and of Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, Senior Advocate appearing for Smt Sodum Anvesha, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
1. That the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and the same hereby is dismissed; and
2. That there be no order as to costs in this CMA.
Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SreriON OFFICER To,
1. The Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
2. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
3. Subordinate Judge (Senior Division), Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
4. Two CD Copies BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED:02/07/2025 DECREE CMA NO. 1251 OF 1993 I inUL2()25 t . Current Secnon DISMISSING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS