M/s.Ramani Hotels Ltd v. M/s.Mahindra Ugine Street Company Ltd
AS/1002/2010 · 2025-03-19
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, Ravi Nath Tilhari
Original Suitbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 22798 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 22798 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010321362010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI APPEAL SUIT Between: M/s.ramani Hotels Ltd M/s Mahindra Ugine Street Company Ltd and Others Counsel for the Appellant:
1. A CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S SUBBA REDDY
2. BANKATLAL MANDHANI
3. M S SRINIVASA IYENGAR The Court made the following:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NO: 1002/2010 AND M/s Mahindra Ugine Street Company Ltd and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:
A CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S):
BANKATLAL MANDHANI M S SRINIVASA IYENGAR The Court made the following:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3524] NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT(S)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NO:1002 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/2nd defendant, being aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2010 passed in O.S.No.41 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.
2. Today, when the case is called, there is no representation. Even, at the revised call also, none appeared on either side.
3. The matter pertains to the year 2010 and is listed in the
“Weekly Cause-list”
4. In view of the above, the Appeal Suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J
Dated: 19.03.2025 MDP