Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
M/S. Indo Saudi Services (Travels) Private Limited Vs. Thallapalli Rav ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
(As per Sri Syed Abdullah, Honble Member) The appellant is the opposite party in CC No. 531/2007 before the District Forum III, Hyderabad against whom an order dated 19th September, 2007 was passed directing payment of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the respondent/complainant with costs of Rs.2000/- on the ground of deficiency in service and the order is assailed as erroneous on question of fact and law. The facts of the case in brief are that he is an Engineer working in Saudi Arabia since 06.10.1995 till 2007. He used to visit twice a year to look after his family members. The complainant visited India from Saudi Arabia in the month of February, 2007 and his employer issued exit and re-entry Visa from 24.01.2007 to 12.05.2007. The complainant approached the opposite party for booking ticket to Saudi Arabia. On the date of booking the ticket, he was unwell. So he enquired the opposite aprty about getting extension of Visa after its lapse. The opposite party gave a proform...
Visakhapatnam Port Trust Rep. by Its Deputy Director Vs. Divisional Ma ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
(As per Sri Syed Abdullah, Honble Member) The complaint is filed by the Deputy Director of Visakhapatnam Port Trust against the opposite party Insurance Company seeking reimbursement of the insurance claim amount of Rs.23,65,309/-, also for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs with interest thereon and also expenses and costs to a tune of Rs.21,000/-. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant had taken Standard Fire and Special Perils (Material damage) Policy from the opposite party so as to cover the risk of damage to the electronic equipments of Information Technology Division of Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The policy was effective from 10th March, 2004 up to 23rd February, 2005. On payment of premium, policy was issued. The electronic equipment of the establishment was insured under the policy and it was kept under constant vigil and surveillance of the staff regularly. As the matter stood thus, on 7th June, 2004 and 28th June, 2004, the insured electronic equipment such as bu...
National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Mummali Gopala Krishna @ Krishna Ba ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
Oral Order (As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The opposite party in C.D.No.47 of 2004 on the file of District Forum-Nellore is the appellant herein. The complainant filed the complaint contending that he is the owner of the auto bearing No.A.P.U259 which was purchased in the year 2000 to eke out his livelihood. On 16.2.2002 at about 2 p.m the lorry bearing No.A.P.No.26T-1413 hit the complainants auto resulting which the auto turned turtle and completely damaged. The passengers of the auto received grievous injuries. The matter was reported to the concerned police station. A case was registered against the driver of the lorry. The opposite party paid Rs.7,000/- only instead of actual repairing charges of Rs.43,890/-. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite party for the payment of amount of Rs.36,890/- with interest, damages and costs. The opposite party resisted the case contending that the auto was purchased by the ...
G. Rajender and Another Vs. M. Kasenath and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
Oral Order (As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The opposite parties no.2 and 3 in C.C.No.531 of 2006 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad are the appellants herein. The complainant filed the complaint contending that they have purchased the flats in the year 2004 by paying entire sale consideration and have been in possession and enjoyment of it. While so, one of the complainants received notice dated 1.9.2005 from HMWS and SB informing that fresh water connection in the appropriate category should be applied within three days else the old connection would be disconnected. As per the terms and conditions, the opposite parties have provided water connection and they failed to take new connection as per the rules. In spite of the request, the opposite parties failed to take any steps to get new connection. Hence, the complainants filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the builder and also to the owners of the property to obtain water tap connection ...
T. Laxminarayan Goud Vs. the Branch Manager, the United Insurance Comp ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
Oral Order (As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The unsuccessful complainant filed the appeal challenging the order of the District Forum, Nizamabad in C.D.No. 20 of 2007. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant for his agricultural operation had purchased a Tractor bearing number AP-25D-7083 and got insured it with the respondent company vide the insurance policy bearing number 050702/47/04/00133 for the period from 12th August, 2004 to 11th August, 2005. On 26th June, 2005 the Tractor was taken to the field of Suleman by the son of the appellant, Sanjay Goud and Akram Sailoo. While returning from the field of Suleman, the Tractor developed mechanical problem at the outskirts of the village. Leaving the vehicle there, the son of the appellant had returned along with a mechanic to the place where the Tractor was stranded and found the Tractor missing. After making all possible efforts, the son of the appellant lodged complaint on 28th June, 2005 with the Police Kotagir...
E.Satyanarayana Reddy Vs.Ch.Muralidhar Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
1.Heard Sri P.V. Narayana Rao, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner/plaintiff. The respondent/defendant had been served and none represents the respondent/defendant.2.This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Revision petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved of the order made in I.A.No.1442/2008 in O.S.No.251/2004 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The said application was filed under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act (in short hereinafter referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "Code" for the purpose of convenience) to permit the petitioner to lead secondary evidence in respect of the agreement dated 21-1-1981 and affidavit dated 7-8-1989. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal after recording reasons came to the conclusion that such documents cannot be permitted by way of secondary ev...
M/S. Azam Foods Products Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Office and Unit at Goll ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
ORDER: (Per Sri Justice G. Raghuram) The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Chennai Bench) ['the DRAT'] by the order impugned dated 16.07.2008 allowed the appeal RA (SARFAESI)-49/2007, preferred by the 3rd respondent-Bank (a secured creditor) and set aside the order dated 31.07.2007 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam ('the DRT'). The chronology of facts: The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956, engaged in the business of trading in rice. It has a factory at Gollapalli (v), Zedcherla (M), Mahabubnagar District. The petitioner availed credit facility from the secured creditor, initially in an amount of Rs. 2 crores which was thereafter enhanced to Rs.2.5 crores, for its business. The petitioner defaulted in payment of the outstanding dues/instalments. The secured creditor by a letter dated 20.12.2004 intimated the petitioner, inter alia that its total liability on the credit account is Rs.2,51,44,583/-; that as c...
A. John Peter. Vs. Gangisetty Maddulelti @ Madduletaiah.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
1.This Court ordered notice before admission on 5-12-2009 and in C.R.P.M.P.No.7809/2009 this Court granted interim stay on condition of depositing half of the decrial amount within a period of eight weeks. Inasmuch as, the said conditional order had not been complied with, the interim stay granted earlier had been vacated on 28-4-2010 in C.R.P.M.P.No.1294/2010. 2.Sri Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through the grounds raised in the Civil Revision Petition and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned III-Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal totally erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner praying for condemnation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience). The learned Counsel also would maintain that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 had not been appreciated in proper perspective ...
S. Neelakantam Vs. Maharudraiah Swamy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
The dismissal of I.A. No.33 of 2010 in O.S. No.39 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Zaheerabad by the order dated 21-04-2010 led the unsuccessful defendant to approach this Court with this revision. The defendant earlier filed I.A. No.310 of 2008 to send the agreement of sale Ex.A.2 to a handwriting expert, which was allowed and the State Forensic Science Laboratory on examination of the document had opined that it is not possible to offer any opinion on the red enclosed portion marked 'Q' in question. The suit was posted for further evidence thereafter, at which stage the defendant again applied through this petition to send Ex.A.2 to Truth Laboratory, Hyderabad for giving an opinion whether the disputed portion in the document is different from the remaining portion of the contents of the document. The plaintiff opposed the request contending that he not only had no faith in any private agency accessible to one and all, but also opposed to the request, as any suc...
Sikakollu Chandramohan and Others. Vs. Sikakollu Saraswathi Devi and A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
1.The sons/petitioners 1 to 3 question judgment dated 18.05.2010 passed by the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2007 by which the lower appellate court confirmed order dated 20.10.2009 passed by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in D.V.C.No.17 of 2007 granting maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month at the rate of Rs.25,000/- by each of the sons and compensation of Rs.50,000/- from each of the sons to the 1st respondent/mother. 2.The 1st respondent has got three sons (who are the petitioners 1 to 3) and five married daughters. The 1st respondent was aged 76 years by the time she filed Domestic Violence Case before the Magistrate. Her husband Subbarao died in the year 1994. Originally, the parties belonged to Singarayakonda of Prakasam District. Now the 1st respondent is residing at Hyderabad along with her third daughter. It is alleged that the 1st respondent is suffering from several ailments and that her health co...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »