Andhra Pradesh Court May 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.
Utukuri Nagabraham Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-27-2010
ORDERB. Chandra Kumar, J.1. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam in E.C. Appeal No. 49 of 2010, whereby and where under the appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order dated 06.11.2009 passed by the Joint Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam in E.C.P. No. 140 of 2009.2. Heard.3. The facts, in brief, are as follows:On credible information that BPT/preferred varieties of paddy had been stored in huge quantities unauthorizedly in State Warehousing Corporation, Jaggaiahpet, by the traders on benami names and that such illegal storage has resulted in abnormal increase in the prices of rice of BPT/preferred varieties and thereby, public in general were not in a position to purchase the rice, the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Vijayawada, accompanied by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officials and Civil Supplies Officials constituting a team, surprised th...
Pithani Bala Bhaskara Venkateswara Rao Vs. Satyam Constructions
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-26-2010
R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member: Oral: 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The facts leading to filing of the appeal as narrated by the appellant are that the appellant entered into a construction agreement dated 3.9.2007 with the respondent for purchase of flat bearing No. G-2, ground floor, measuring 800 sq.ft. for a consideration of Rs. 6,60,000. At the time of execution of the agreement the appellant has paid a sum of Rs. 50,000 and the balance amount was agreed to be paid in instalments at the time of registration of the flat. The appellant has paid further amount of Rs. 50,000 on 6.12.2007. The respondent assured the complainant that it would arrange for the housing loan. On being informed by the respondent that in order to receive substantial loan amount, the appellant has to clear off his personal loan, the appellant has repaid the entire personal loan amount on 10.4.2008. The respondent has not processed the loan application of the appellant nor furnished copie...
Dr. Ch. Raghuram Vs. Kasuladev Anusha and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-26-2010
Oral Order: R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member: The opposite party no.3 is the appellant. The appellant challenges the order of the District Forum directing him to pay the amount of Rs.3 lakh with interest @9 % p.a. from 26.3.2004 together with compensation and costs of Rs.2500/-. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint. The complainant being a minor has filed the complaint through her father, Rama Rao who, on 25-08-2002 took her to the opposite party no.3 for treatment of bulging of her throat. The opposite party no.3 after examining the complainant advised her to under go tonsillectomy and informed the complainants father that he has to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards operation charges. The complainant was admitted on 15.8.2002 for operation in Dutta Sai Nursing Home of opposite party no.3 and on the same day the opposite parties no.2 and 3 performed the operation and after completion of the operation the opposite party no.3 ...
John Abraham Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2010
ORDERB. Chandra Kumar, J.1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-Accused No. 1, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking bail in Crime No. 242 of 2009 of P.S. North Zone Team, Central Crime Station, DD, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 380 r/w Section 120-B of IPC.2. Heard.3. The petitioner is Accused No. 1 and husband of A.2. There are four deceased persons in this case and they are all residents of Dubai. They came for a visit to their native place Tanuku in East Godavari District. A.2 is no other than the niece of deceased No. 1. A.2 was selling insurance products to public and induced all the deceased to invest Rs. 80,00,000/- and D.2 had sent a sum of Rs. 20 lakh to A.2. However, the said amount was misused by A.2. Subsequently, when the deceased were asking about the policy and money, A.2 hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased persons. On 21.08.2009 when the deceased came to Hyderabad and were staying in Park Lane Hotel, t...
Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., Rep. by Its Divisional Manager (Cc) Vs. M. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-19-2010
Smt. M. Shreesha, Member: These appeals are disposed of by a common order since the facts are identical in both the cases. F.A.No.1592/2007: Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.464/2006 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a plot from opposite party admeasuring 200 sq. yds. in the venture of Sai Lakshmi II situated at Nanakramguda Village,Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District in the year 2000 for a consideration of Rs.1700/- per sq. yd. and the sale consideration amount is payable in 40 instalments. The opposite party issued a pass book bearing No.186 and the complainant paid 18 monthly instalments amounting to Rs.2,07,500/- from 03-6-2000 to 06-11-2004. The complainant submitted that he insisted the opposite party to produce the documents of tile and layout and in November, 2004 insisted to allot a particular plot so that he will pay the entire balance sale considerat...
Dr. B. Leelavathi Obstetrician and Gynecologist Vs. Malliala Saivardhi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-19-2010
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.136/2005 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, opposite party No.1 preferred F.A.No.538/2007 and opposite party No.3 preferred F.A.No.650/2007. Since both the appeals arise out of the same C.D., they are being disposed of by a common order. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that complainant No.1 is the daughter and complainant No.2 was the husband of late Subhadra who died on 11-6-2004 on account of negligence in treatment of opposite parties 1 and 2. The deceased Subhadra became pregnant in the month of December, 2003 and was under prenatal treatment of opposite party No.1 and taking treatment regularly as advised. During the course of the treatment, opposite party No.1 advised the deceased to undergo scanning and on undergoing the same on 30-5-2004, opposite party no.1 confirmed that she was carrying twins and informed the due date of delivery as 3-7-2004. The deceased consu...
Dr. Pratty Gopala Rao Vs. M/S. Bhavani Agencies Rep. by Its Managing P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-19-2010
Smt. M. Shreesha, Member: Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.153/2005 on the file of District Forum-I, Visakhapatnam, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a flat bearing No.7 measuring 1235 s.ft. plinth area in Garuda Enclave by virtue of registered sale deed dated 21-4-2003 from the opposite parties and one Garuda Nageswara Rao who was the owner of the land. The complainant submitted that he paid Rs.5,43,180/- towards sale consideration corresponding to 60 sq. yds of joint undivided share and 80% of construction value of the said flat in the third floor. An agreement was arrived at on 21-4-2003 between the complainant and opposite parties in respect of the remaining 20% construction and as per the said agreement, the complainant has to pay Rs.88,920/- for the remaining work. Accordingly the said amount was paid to the opposite parties but the opposite parties demanded Rs.1,00,000/- towards marble flooring, ...
Dr. G. Ramesh Vs. M. Ganga Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-19-2010
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.10/1998 on the file of District Forum, Nizamabad, opposite party preferred F.A.No.641/2007 and the complainant preferred F.A.No.1620/2008. Since both the appeals arise out of the same C.D., they are being disposed of by a common order. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that complainant, an agriculturist, earning Rs.3,00,000/- from agriculture sustained fracture to his thigh on 01-5-1997 and was taken to Government Hospital, Kamareddy and consulted opposite party doctor. Under the advice of opposite party doctor, he was admitted in Jeevadhan hospital at Kamareddy. After examination, the opposite party assured the complainant that he could walk within one month and started treatment. The fracture site was bandaged and weight was applied by suspending a sand bag to the lower part of the leg of complainant. The complainant submitted that he suffered severe pain and regularly informed t...
M/S. Kjr Granites Rep. by Its Proprietorix Ms. Singu Aruna Vs. Asst. E ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-12-2010
Oral Order: R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member: The complainant is the appellant. The appeal is challenge to the order of dismissal of the complaint. The complaint was dismissed for the reason that the appellant had unauthorized utilization of the connected load of 103 HP against the sanctioned load of 75 HP. The complainant obtained service connection, S.C.No. 1255 under category III(A) on 4th July, 2003. The respondents no.2 and 3 issued notice dated 4.8.2004 instructing the appellants to change the category of service connection No.1255 from category III(A) to Category III(B) and pay a sum of Rs.55,577/- towards development and other miscellaneous charges besides Rs.1,20,200/- towards metering and terminal charges. Questioning the issuance of the notice on the ground that the appellant had already paid development charges to the tune of Rs.42,000/- and demand and customary charges as also supervisory charges and that the demand for Rs.1,20,200/- towards meter and terminal charges is arb...
Dantu Subbarayudu Vs. Asst. Manager-in-charge M/S Stock Holding Corpor ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-12-2010
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The appeal is filed by the complainant feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum returning his complaint on the aspect of pecuniary jurisdiction. The facts of the case are that the complainant had opened a D-mat account on 13.7.1999 with the opposite partyno.2. The complainant was allotted the securities account bearing No.200002364 and SHCIL DP id IN301022. The opposite party no.2 had sent monthly statement of holding of the 4000 shares of M/s Nagarjuna Construction Co., Ltd., till the month of July 2005. From the month of August 2005 the opposite party no.2 had stopped sending the monthly statement of holding to the complainant. The complainant, in the month of September 2005, came to know that without his knowledge and from his account 3600 shares out of 4000 shares of M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited worth of Rs.17,00,000/- were sold off. The efforts of the complainant to seek the relevant information proved...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »