Skip to content

Andhra Pradesh Court March 2010 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.

Mar 04 2010

The Manager, Customer Care the Professional Couriers Vs. Sri R. Venkat ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on: Mar-04-2010

Oral Order ( As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The opposite party is the appellant. The appeal is challenge to the order passed by the District forum-I, Hyderabad in C.D.No.812 of 2003. Briefly stated the facts of the case as represented by the complainant are that on 12.9.2002 the complainant booked a consignment containing original IfCI Bond bearing folio No.5008-974 to deliver it to their head office at Delhi with the opposite party. However, as the opposite party failed to deliver the said consignment at the destination at Delhi the complainant addressed several letters to the opposite party for delivery of the said consignment. The opposite party through its letter dated 6.2.2003 informed the complainant that the said consignment has been returned back by the Delhi office to their branch at Khairatabad on 18.9.2002 for effecting delivery to the complainant. But as the efforts of the complainant to receive the said documents were futile he got issued a legal notices dated 25....


Mar 03 2010

Gone Rajamma and ors. Vs. Chennamaneni Mohan Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-03-2010

Reported in: 2010(3)ALT225

ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J.1. This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order, dated 19-10-2009, in C.M.A. No. 57 of 2007, on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, in confirming the order, dated 26-09-2007, in I.A. No. 337 of 2007 in O.S. No. 79 of 2007, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.2. Petitioners herein are the respondents (defendants) and the respondent herein is the petitioner (plaintiff) in the suit.3. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision may be stated as follows:The respondent herein filed I.A. No. 337 of 2007 in O.S. No. 79 of 2007 before the trial Court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant temporary injunction restraining the petitioners herein, their agents, workmen, servants and labourers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent herein over the suit schedule land bearing Sy. No. 194, measuring Ac.6.39 guntas situated at Sankenapalli v...


Mar 03 2010

P. Surya Kumar Vs. the Proprietor of Manager

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on: Mar-03-2010

Oral order : ( as per Sri Syed Abdullah, Honble Member ) Being not satisfied with the order dated 31.01.2006 passed by the District Forum III, Hyderabad in CD 560/2005, this complaint is filed seeking enhancement of compensation. The facts of the case are that on 8.8.2004 the complainant along with family members went to Cinema show in the OPs theatre where he parked his two wheeler in the parking area by paying charges of Rs.8/- for which a receipt was passed. The complainant purchased cinema tickets to witness the movie. After the show the complainant found that the vehicle was found missing from its place . With the help of security personnel he made a thorough search of his vehicle but in vain. A oral complaint is also given to the Manger of the theatre. He lodged a complaint with SHO , Chikkadapally and FIR was registered in Cr No. 453/2004 by the police but the also police also did not succeed in tracing out the vehicle. The complainant purchased the said vehicle from his uncle f...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial