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.
Kotha Srinivasa Rao Vs. Andhra Bank, Rep. by Its Branch Manager
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
Oral Order :(Per Smt M. Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.159/2007 on the file of District Forum, Prakasam Dist at Ongole, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant holds a Savings Bank A/c.no.23615 and on 31.10.2006 the complainant purchased an account payee demand draft bearing no.174634 for an amount of Rs.27,486/- from the opposite party bank drawn on Hyderabad Branch in favour of Vardhaman Textiles Ltd. The complainant sent the said demand draft to Vardhaman Textiles Ltd., Hyderabad through the City Courier Service, Chirala on the same day but it was not delivered to the addressee. On 16.11.2006 the complainant addressed a letter to the opposite party informing that the DD sent by the courier was lost and to immediately stop the payment of the said draft and requested the bank to issue duplicate demand draft. The opposite party issued duplicate demand draft on 5.12.2006 on execution of an i...
Shaik Gouse Basha Vs. M/S. M.G. Brothers Automobiles Ltd and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2010
ORAL ORDER: (Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission. The appellant is the unsuccessful complainant. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased Bajaj Platina Motor Cycle on 26-9-2007 from opposite party No.1, dealer of the manufacturer, opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.3 is his financier. He paid Rs.8,500/- towards down payment against the total amount of Rs.42,494/- and agreed to pay the remaining amount in instalments to opposite party no.3. It had collected blank cheques and obtained his signatures on some blank papers. A two years warrantee was given and the same was extended for two more years. While so, after one week, on 06-10-2007 the vehicle started giving trouble which was intimated to opposite party No.1, which it got it rectified after keeping the vehicle for a week. H...
M/S Sri Constructions Rep, by Its Managing Partner Polavarapu Srinivas ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2010
Oral Order (As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The opposite party is the appellant. The appellant is engaged in real estate business. The respondent entered into agreement with the appellant to purchase a flat and paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- on 27.7.2002. In the agreement the consideration was shown Rs.2,25,000/-. The appellant had collected an amount of Rs.4,45,000/- from the respondent. After completion of the flat no.305, the appellant handed over the same to the respondent. The respondent has filed the complaint contending that the construction of the flat was defective and there was seepage of water through the walls and the interior decoration maintained by the flat owners was damaged. The respondent got issued notice dated 24.7.2004 through his counsel requesting the appellant to rectify the defect. The appellant has received the notice and did not choose to give any reply. The appellant remained exparte. Basing on the documents Exs.A1 to A8 and affidavit of the respondent, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›