Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD(Cri)627; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)353; 1999CriLJ1713
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.2. It appears that a cage is pending against the petitioners before the learned trial Court. It was posted for final hearing when an application came to be filed seeking recall of PWs. 1 and 2. The following application was moved before the learned trial Court :-That in the above said case LW-1 to LW-4 and LW-6 were examined as PW-1 to PW-5 and the said case is posted today for judgment. Today, the case file of the above said case is handed over to me, and I have gone through the file and noticed that due to inadvertency some of the relevant questions on FIR and some of the facts were not put to the PW-1 and 2.Today I am coming on the record and filing Memo of appearance on behalf of petitioner/Accused Nos. 1 to 3.In the above-mentioned case (sic) just and necessary to recall the PW-1 and PW-2 for the proper adjudication, unless the PWs 1 and 2 were recalled for the purpose of cross-examination in respect of FIR and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. This is an appeal preferred by the first opposite party in C.D. No. 310/1993 against the order of the Mahabubnagar District Forum dated 2.1.1997 allowing that complaint and directing him to refund the amount of Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the order. The complainant in that C.D. is the first respondent before us and the second opposite party in that C.D. is the second respondent before us. 2. The facts in brief are that the complainant obtained a loan of Rs. 12,500/- from the first opposite party through the second opposite party for construction of residential house in plot No. 36/B. The complainant deposited all his title deeds with the opposite party No. 2 as security and they were passed on to the first opposite party and the loan that was sanctioned by the first opposite party was released to him through the second opposite party. It is not in dispute that the loan had to be repaid in instalments through the payments...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(5)ALD553; 1998(5)ALT354
1. The writ petition is filed seeking writ of Certiorari and quash the order of removal passed by the 1st respondent dated 21-5-1990 and confirmed by the appellate authority-2nd respondent dated 17-8-1990 and for consequential relief.2. The petitioner was a native of Vegeswarapuram village near Polavaram Agency area in West Godavari District. According to him, he completed Intermediate in Government Junior College, Kovvur and B.Com. at Bhimavaram. According to him he was bom on 1-7-1954 and he belonged to 'Medari' Community. It is his case that he applied for scholarship as a Backward Class candidate when he was studying B.Com. However, the District Social Welfare Officer did not grant scholarship on the ground that 'Medari' Community falls under Schedule Tribe and therefore he cannot claim scholarship under BC Category. Accordingly, the scholarship was stopped for one year. He was however permitted to apply for scholarship under the ST category for 2nd year B.Com. and the same was rec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2001]103CompCas199(AP); (1999)2CompLJ398(AP)
Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J 1. This is an application under Sections 433(e) and 433(f) read with Sections 434(1) and 439(1)(b) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, (for short 'the Act'), for winding up the respondent-company. 2. The admitted facts of the case, in brief, are that in answer to the invitation of tenders for construction of fabrication shed and ancillary building required for the purposes of the respondent-company's factory, the petitioner had given its offer, vide letter dated July 2, 1994. After exchange of letters and negotiations, the contract was finalised on September 28, 1994, and the price of the contract was settled approximately at Rs. 2.50 crores. The work was completed between the month of December, 1995, and April. 1996. 3. The case of the petitioner-company is that the tenders were called for and accepted as item rate contract. Besides the work at Ghatkesar, where the construction of fabrication shed and ancillary building' was required to be completed, the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1.Perused the complaint. We find that the matter is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v.Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba,AIR 1984 SC 1014, against the complainant. The complainant, who is the grand child of one late Badde Somarajamma, w/o Late Somaraju, has filed this complaint as nominee of late Somarajamma. According to her, Smt. Somarajamma took a policy with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) by paying premium of Rs. 18,075/-. The policy was for Rs. 6,00,000/- and the first premium was paid by the Somarajamma on 25.1.1996 and a pucca receipt was also given to her. Though no proper policy was there according to the complainant, a concluding contract could be inferred by the opposite parties retaining the premium and as Somarajamma was assured that the sending of the policy by the LIC was only a formal act. The premia were to be paid quarterly. As Somarajamma did not receive the policy, she wanted to pay ...
Tag this Judgment!