Telangana High Court
WP/18804/2012 of Rithwik Projects Private Limited, Vs Southern Railway on 31 December 2012
Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.18804 of 2012 Dated 31.12.2012 Between: Rithwik Projects Private Limited Rep. by its authorized signatory T.Ravi Krishna …Petitioner And Southern Railway rep. by its Chief Engineer Construction (SRB) Tambaram, Chennai 600045 and 4
The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.18804 of 2012
Between:
Dated 31.12.2012
Rithwik Projects Private LimitedRep. by its authorized signatoryT.Ravi Krishna …Petitioner
And
Southern Railway rep. by itsChief Engineer Construction (SRB)Tambaram, Chennai 600045 and 4 others.
…Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.Niranjan ReddyCounsel for respondent No.1: Sri P.Ganga RamiReddy, SC for Railways The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantiverelief:
“to issue an appropriate writ, order ordirection, one more particularly in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus declaring: (i) the action of the1st respondent in seeking to unilaterally declarethe petitioner to be in breach of the agreementsexecuted between the 1st respondent and 2ndrespondent bearing Nos.59/CN/2009 dated29.5.2009 for Reach-1, 60/CN/2009 dated29.5.2009 for Reach-II and 58/CN/2009 dated29.5.2009 for Reach-111 as illegal, arbitrary andunconstitutional and contrary to the provisions ofIndian Contract Act and set aside the saidaction; (ii) the further action of the 1strespondent in seeking to encash the petitioner'sbank guarantees as illegal, arbitrary,unconstitutional and set aside such actions; (iii)direct the 1St respondent not to invoke andencash the bank guarantees issued by thepetitioner”
At the hearing, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learnedCounsel for the petitioner, sought for permission of theCourt to withdraw the Writ Petition in terms of his letter,dated 28-12-2012, addressed to the Registry.
The request of the learned Counsel for the petitioneris accepted and the Writ Petition is, accordingly,dismissed as withdrawn.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.24093 of 2012, filed by thepetitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
______________________
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
31[st] December, 2012 lur