Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing M. Sitarama Reddy vs Indian Railways Rep. By Its Chairman And ... on 30 December, 1994

M/S. Margadarsi Borewells And Others vs The Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd., ... on 14 February, 1997

15. Learned Senior Counsel Sri M. V. Ramana Reddy, cited the decision in M. Sitarama Reddy v. Indian Railways, (1995) 1 Andh LD 252, in support of his contention that the work of the individual partners could be treated as the work of the firm. No doubt, a contention was raised in the said case that a firm was registered on 9-11-1993 only for the purpose of knocking away the contract and that none of the partners constituting the firm have either individually or together executed or have an actual minimum turnover of Rs. 3.00 crores as contempated under the tender condition. A further contention was also raised that the experience certificate having given in the name of t he partner of the firm and not in the name of the contracting party, cannot be accepted and that the experience certificate did not indicate that the partner had actual turnover of Rs. 3 crores. However, the learned Judge, after considering the contentions, held that the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground that no objections were raised to the tender at the time of opening of the tender and the contentions thereafter raided, were belafed. It was further held that evern after excluding the experience certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, the petitioner had satisfied the requirements of condition 8, since he was first class contractor and submitted 7 other experience and turnover certificates. The learned Judge, relying upon the counter-affidavit filed in the said case stating that it has been uniform practice to take into consideration the eligibility criteria and qualifications of the partnership as that of the individual partners, held that the experience ceriificate of the individual, having been accepted as per the practice prevailing, as the experience of the partnership firm, cannot be faulted. Thus, it is seen that this decision is of no assistance to us. There is no determination of the question whether the experience of an individual before formation of partnership firm could be treated as the experience of the partnership firm. It is significant to notice that in the above case there is no specification of minimum of 3 years experience. Even if it betaken that the experience of the individual is the experience of partnership firm, admittedly since, in the instant case, the partnership was formed in September, 1996 and the individuals being not partners of the firm prior to the formation of the firm, their experience cannot be treated as the experience of the firm. In the above case the experience certificate given to the individual partner fell for consideration and not the experience of the individual prior to its formation. In the circumstances the above case is of no help since it has no application to the facts of the present case.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - V R Reddy - Full Document
1