Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
G. Venkat Reddy S/O Sai Reddy Vs. the Executive Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking following prayers. For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction:(i) To stay the operation of the notice No. A/9/2010, dated 20.3.2010 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal and the same is against the principles of natural justice and norms of the public policy.(ii) Fix the liabilities of the 1st to 5th respondents and subsequently direct the 6th respondent to take such action as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper against ghem.(iii) Direct the 1st respondent to pay damages of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the petitioner towards his mental agony, hardship and the cost of construction of illegally pulled down a portion of RCC House No. 1-8-20 illegally.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is owner of house No. 1-8-20 in an area of 262.50 Sq.yards situated at Kollap...
Y.D. Khader Basha Vs. Hero Motors and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
Oral Order (As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The appellant challenges the order passed by the District Forum on the grounds that the motor cycle Hero Smart Dx purchased by him had given 38 kmpl against the proclaimed 100 kmpl and that the opposite party no.2, service centre was closed by the opposite party no.2 after only the second service was done. The facts of the case as represented by the appellant are that the appellant believing the version of the oppose party no.2 that Hero Smart Dx motor cycle would give 100 kmpl and they would establish showroom at Ananthapur to facilitate necessary and regular service for the vehicles purchased on 9.10.2004 the Hero motor cycle manufactured by the opposite party no.1 for a consideration of Rs.21,373/-. Some time after he has purchased the vehicle, the appellant observed the mileage of the vehicle as 38 kmpl. On complaint of the appellant, the mechanics of the opposite party no.2 attended t...
Srinivas Mopuri Vs. M/S. Maytas Properties Ltd
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
(Per Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Member) The brief facts as out in the complaint are that the complainant entered into an agreement of sale dt.16.2.2007 for flat No. 8A, 8th floor, Type 4 in Simla Block having built up area of 1584 sq.ft., common area of 396 sq.ft. and one car parking area with 88 sq. yards of undivided share in the common land in Sy.No.194/P, 196/P, 197/P for the total consideration of Rs.74,49,352/- payable in a phased manner from 1.12.2006 to 15.3.2008 and as per the agreement of sale the opposite party has to complete the construction by 31.8.2008 or 24 months from the date of execution of the sale agreement which ever is later. The complainant submits that he paid total amount of Rs.63,37,984/- , the details of which are as follows: Receipt Date Cheque/DD No. Amount Payers bank Branch 18-Nov-2006 697130 744,935.00 Andhra Bank Saroornagar 16-Jan-2007 109491 400,000.00 ABN Bank New Delhi 16-Jan-2007 109492 369,706.00 ABN Bank New Delhi 2-Feb-2007 109539 968,781.00 ABN...
Elugu Ravi Kumar Vs. the Chairman Koratla Permanent Fund Ltd., Rep. by ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
Oral Order (As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The complainant is the appellant. The facts leading to filing of the appeal as represented by the appellant are that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.7,200/- in 30 monthly instalments. On 1.3.2000 the deposit was matured and the maturity value of Rs.15,000/- was to be paid by the respondents which inspite of several efforts putforth by the appellant could not realized. The appellant has got issued notice dated 7.1.2009 through his advocate and thereafter filed the complaint before the District Forum on 9.2.2009. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution and feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellant has filed the appeal contending that the counsel for the appellant was engaged in another court on 10.6.2009 and on the same date the complaint was called and dismissed for default. It is contended that the District forum has not considered the documents which would establish the defi...
Gopisetti Venkata Lakshmi Narasimharao S/O Venkata Ramayya Vs. Sri Sat ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The dispute in this second appeal is regarding the validity of attachment of land admeasuring Acs.2.38 (out of Acs.4.20) in R.S. No. 628/1 situated at Sarva, H/o. Lakshmaneswaram Village of Narsapuram Mandal in West Godavari District (hereafter, schedule property). Originally the second respondent herein (J. Dr.) was owner of the property. She obtained a loan from M/s. Sri Satya Financial Services, Narsapuram (hereafter, D. Hr). When the D.Hr brought the schedule property for sale, in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereafter, appellant herein (hereafter, purchaser) filed E.A. No. 387 of 2005 under Order XXI Rule 58 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The same was dismissed. Against the said order and decree, he preferred A.S. No. 178 of 2007 on the file of the Court of District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. The appeal was also dismissed on 21.2.2008, aggrieved by which the present second appeal is filed. Some more necessary factual aspects may...
V. Venugopal and anr. Vs. the Joint Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The second petitioner is the proprietor of wholesale dealer under Food Grain Licence bearing FGL No. 1/PKL/2000. Her nephew is the first petitioner in charge of the shop. On 22.01.2001 at 3.50 p.m., third respondent surprised the shop. Under a Panchanama he seized 392 bags (50 kg each) of raw rice and nine bags (50 kg each) of boiled rice. Based on his report, first respondent framed the following four charges:(1) Petitioners were not in practice of issuing bills to the customers and thereby contravened condition 10 of the Licence issued under APSCD (L&D;) Order, 1982 and Clause 7(1) of the AP Exhibition of Price Lists of Goods Order, 1966;(2) Petitioners have not submitted Form 'C' returns to the Licensing Authority and thereby contravened condition 4 of the licence issued under APSCD (L&D;) Order, 1982;(3) Petitioners have not exhibited price lists board and thereby contravened condition 8 of the licence and Clause 3 of the AP Exhibition of Price Lists of Goods ...
M/S Shriram Chits (P) Ltd. and Others Vs. N. Siva Bhaskar Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2010
Oral Order (As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The opposite parties are the appellants. The appeal is challenge to the order passed by the District Forum which passed the award against the appellants for refund of a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- along with interest. The facts of the case are that the complainant is the subscriber of the opposite parties chit fund company under chit series No.JLC6-35 and JLC6-45 for the chit value of Rs.5 lakhs each for 50 months and monthly subscription for Rs.10,000/- each. In the month of October 2004 the complainant participated in auction. He was successful bidder in the chit No.35 and he fulfilled all the formalities and produced the sureties to the satisfaction of the opposite party no.1 but the opposite parties instead of disbursing the chit amount deposited the same vide FDR Nos.HZC-5563132 to 5563135 of Rs.50,000/- each totaling to Rs.2 lakhs in sister concern company of opposite parties firm i.e., Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., and the remaini...
M/S Srinivasa Marketings Vs. Katam Bhaskar and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2010
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 which passed the award against the appellant for refund of a sum of Rs. 26,645/- with damages of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.1000/-. . The facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a computer system with Samsung and Giga Bite products Limited wherefor 3 years warrantee was extended by the opposite party on 6.7.2005. Since the date of purchase as the said system is not working properly, the complainant was intimated the same to the opposite party and also Samsung servicing centre vide letter dated 22.5.2006. Even after receipt of the said complaint the opposite party did not take proper steps to rectify the same. Thereafter the complainant also got issued reminder dated 28.6.2006 which was refused by the opposite party. Hence the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to refund the amount ...
United India Insurance Co., Ltd and Another Vs. M. Naresh Kumar and An ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
Oral Order (As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The appeal is challenge to the order passed by the District forum-III Hyderabad, in C.C.No.902 of 2007. Briefly stated the facts of the case as represented by the complainants are that they are the holders of individual mediclaim policy bearing NO.051501/48/06/20/000000691 dated 10.08.2006 issued by the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.2 lakh after collecting premium amount of Rs.3,500/-. In the first week of November 2006 Gynecologist advised the complainant no.2 to go for colonoscopy test at Swapna Nursing home. On 14.11.2006 after having been conducted the tests she was diagnosed with chronic cervicits with abnormal cellular pattern. Subsequently on 11.2.2007 the complainant no.2 was admitted to the Kirloskar Hospital where laproscopic hysterectomy was conducted by Dr.Padmini Gandham. The complainant submitted claim for hospitalization expenses through their agent Medsave was repudiated by the opposite parties. The opposite party ...
Smt Kotaprolu Sarada Vs. the Asst. Divisional Engineer and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
Oral Order (As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that the electricity service connections bearing no.212 and 204 stood in the name of her late husband. The complainant claims to have used the service connection no.212 for residential purpose under category I and service connection no.204 for poultry purpose under category III and that she was paying the bills issued for the respective connections regularly. Both service connections were said to have been inspected on 16.6.2006 and signature of her workman stated to have been obtained denying the inspection proceedings. The opposite parties issued provisional assessment order on 21.7.2006 claiming unauthorized usage of 1040 units through SC No.212 and a demand for Rs.7,680/- was raised by issuing the assessment order. The copies of inspection report and calculation sheet said to have been not issued inspite of a request made theref...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »