Andhra Pradesh Court October 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Talasila Sandhya Vs. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT211
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The decision of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishna at Vijayawada in O.P. No. 263 of 1986 dated 20-2-1990 is challenged by the claimant/appellant, who had laid a claim Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/-, alleging that she suffered injuries and disabilities due to the rash and negligent driving of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus AAZ 5835 by the driver (2nd respondent). The respondents resisted the claim. There was another similar petition filed by one Ratala Bhamini in O.P. No. 265 of 1986. After an enquiry the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent was not established and although it was found that the claimants in both the petitions were entitled to recover certain amounts, in the present case Rs. 7,500/- were awarded for no fault liability Under Section 92-A of the Act, and whereas the other petition was dis...
Vinod Kumar Asawa Vs. Smt. Sumita Asawa and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT303
ORDERKrishna Saran Shrivastav, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel of the petitioner. None appears for the respondents.2. The petitioner-husband filed a petition for divorce against the 1st respondent-defendant on the ground of cruelty. It was alleged that the respondent has left the matrimonial home on 10-1-1994 and thereafter, has been staying away from the petitioner and has deserted him. During the pendency of the proceedings, two years have passed. The petitioner moved an application for amendment of the petition on the ground that he may be permitted to amend the petition by taking additional ground of desertion for divorce because by 10-1-1996 two years have passed and this subsequent event should be taken notice of. The 1st respondent resisted the petition,3. The trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that the day on which the petition was filed, the desertion was for less than two years and after passing of the two years in case the proposed amendment is allowed, it may re...
Modern Nutrition Company, Rep. by Its Managing Partner, Mr. Vinod Gupt ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT1060
P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. Heard.2. Since facts in all connected cases are identical and a decision on the questions involved in one of them will determine finally the relief which the Court can grant, we propose to take up for consideration Writ Appeal No. 1056 of 1996.3. Writ petitioner-appellant has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking, inter alia, an order to restrain the respondents from realising any market fee en route at check-post on the goods in transit where the goods have not been purchased or sold within the State of Andhra Pradesh and for refund of such amount of fee already collected from the writ petitioner-appellant.4. Facts in brief are that writ petitioner-appellant is a company with its office at Hyderabad and is having an industry manufacturing wheat products like atta, ravva, maida, etc. For the purposes of its products, it purchases wheat from Punjab, Maharastra, etc. and also from the Food Corporation of India. It is alleged, while th...
Smt. Mala Parkal Vs. Shaik Haider and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALT646
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The appellant is the claimant in O.P. No. 230 of 1989 under Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') in a personal injury claim case claiming compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/- which was resisted by the 1st respondent, the owner of the lorry APT 9987, and the 2nd respondent-the insurer and after an enquiry, the claim conceded to the extent of Rs. 61,600/- and aggrieved by that an inadequate, this appeal is filed.2. It is found by the Tribunal that the claimant, a lady aged 32 years at the relevant time, a teacher by profession, was involved in a motor vehicle accident while she was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter, which was hit by lorry AP 9987 from behind the scooter and that it was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the driver. It was also found that the claimant had sustained serious injuries leaving a disability at 45 per cent, lost the marital life and opportunity of pregnancy and was unable to perform her duties...
Rathod Hari Ram Vs. Apsrtc Through Depot Manager, Nirmal and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)ALT657
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The Appellant who is a Police Constable is said to have suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13-3-1986 whereas he filed the claim petition Under Section 110-A of the MV Act on 14-12-1988 along with an application I.A. 175/89 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Adilabad for condonation of delay of 13 months. The reason for such a delay was said to be due to the appellant - claimant being undergoing treatment for serious injuries in the hospital for over one year. The Tribunal after hearing both the sides did not agree with the claimant about the reason for the delay and therefore dismissed the claim petition as barred by limitation by dismissing the application for condonation of delay.2. The learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that in a motor vehicle claim case the Tribunal should be liberal in condoning the delay if plausible and possible reasons are afforded. The law in this regard also appears to be settled. In a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›