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.
P.V.V.A.V. Prasad Vs. Shaik Mahaboob Basha
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
The Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.196 of 2009 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 26- 10-2009 and S.A.M.P.No.535 of 2010 is filed by the appellant to pronounce the judgment in the Second Appeal based on the judicial admission made by the respondent in the written statement. O.S.No.1583 of 2007 before the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, was filed by the appellant for eviction of the respondent from the suit property, a shop at Guntur, and also for future damages at Rs.15,000/- per month and costs. The appellant claimed to have leased out the premises to the respondent for three years from 01-10-2003 for an agreed rent of Rs.5,000/- per month with interest free security deposit of Rs.25,000/-. The appellant alleged that since July 2006 the respondent became a chronic wilful defaulter in payment of rent and as the period of lease has also expired, the appellant has issued a notice to quit on 13-11-2006....
M/S. Nipha Exports (P) Limited and Others Vs. M/S. Sri Maheshwari Indu ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
(Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1. The complainant in CC.No.42/2006 preferred FA.No.1724/2007 against inadequacy of compensation and the complainant in CC.No.43/2006 preferred FA.No.1697/2007 against dismissal of the complaint, while the opposite party in both C.Cs. preferred FA.No.1560/2007 questioning awarding of compensation in favour of the complainant. Since common questions of fact and law arise they are disposed of by a common order. 2. The case of the complainant in CC.No.42/2006 in brief is that it is a proprietory concern doing business in cotton viz. purchase of kapas (cotton), ginning it and sale of pressed cotton bales, cotton seed, etc. While so, he purchased NIPHA Double Roller Gin Machines for a consideration of Rs.19,59,759/- under Invoice dated 13.08.2005 from opposite party company, M/s.Nipha Exports (P) Limited. When the machinery was not running well, on complaint it was re-fixed with spare parts after collecting Rs.2.75 lakhs, however, it did not...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Gajula Franklin
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
(Per Honble Sri Jus tice D.Appa Rao, President) 1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party Insurance Company against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar, directing it to pay Rs.70,000/- with interest at 9% per annum and costs of Rs.500/-. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is that his Ambassador car which he was using and was also hiring to Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Bellampally for an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month, met with an accident on 12.09.2002 while he was proceeding to Nizamabad from Bellampally. In fact the car was insured with the appellant, covering the period from 29.08.2002 to 28.08.2003. On report, the policy registered a case in Crime No.157/2002 under Sec.279 IPC. The car was heavily damaged. He got it repaired by incurring an amount of Rs.51,233/-. In fact he lost income of Rs.10,000/- per month. When he sent the claim, the same was not settled. Therefore, he got issued a legal notice followed by complaint claiming the above...
Chukka Ramaiah, S/O. Venkataiah Vs. Chekuru Bujjiah, S/O. Gundaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
The respondent filed O.S.No.62 of 2007 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur for recovery of certain amounts on the basis of a promissory note. The petitioner denied the allegations made by the respondent. The trial of the suit commenced and the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent was recorded. The petitioner deposed as DW.1. He wanted to examine scribe of the promissory note as DW.2. As a matter of fact, an affidavit in lieu of chief examination of DW.2 was filed. The petitioner filed I.A.No.20 of 2010 under Section 31 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to issue summons to DW.2. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through its order dated 5.02.2010. Hence this revision petition. Sri N. Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though DW.2 agreed to depose as a witness in relation to the allegation as to his scribing the promissory note, he refused to cooperate after filing the affidavit in lieu of chief...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Daka Mahalakshamma and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
Oral Order (Per Honble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President) 1. This is an appeal preferred by opposite party No.1, the Insurance Company, against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole directing it to pay Rs.87,460/- with interest at 9% per annum, besides compensation and costs. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she is the owner of a tobacco barn insured with opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- covering the period from 19.10.2006 to 18.10.2007 While so, there was a cyclone on 30.10.2006 whereby material as well as property was damaged. Therefore, the complainant claimed Rs.92,500/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of cyclone i.e. 30.10.2006, besides compensation of Rs.6,000/- and costs. 3. The appellant resisted the case. While admitting issuance of policy, it alleged that as soon as it received claim it had appointed a surveyor, who in turn visited the barn and assessed the loss at Rs.15,620/- for which it had sent a d...
G.Pentamma and Others.Vs.G.Anjali and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
The jurisdiction of the Family Court, Hyderabad, in entertaining O.P.No.387 of 2005 under Section 7(1) Explanation (c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is under challenge.O.P.No.387 of 2005 was filed by the first respondent herein against her husband, the second respondent herein, and her sisters-in-law, the petitioners herein, seeking a declaration that she was the joint owner of the petition schedule property along with her husband and to consequently declare the sale deed bearing document No.1193 of 1998 dated 15.05.1998 as invalid and not binding on her. By the said sale deed, the second respondent sold the petition schedule property, being the house bearing M.No.10-3-199, Humayunnagar, Hyderabad, to his three sisters, the petitioners herein. It was the case of the first respondent before the Family Court that she had contributed a half share towards the construction of the petition schedule house and was therefore entitled to be declared as joint owner along with her husband. She fu...
N. Sunkanna Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.01.2006 delivered in C.C. No.5 of 1995 wherein the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, having considered the evidence both oral and documentary, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and it is further ordered that both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrent...
Mothukuri Ranga Rao and Another Vs. Royyala Laxminarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
Both the Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the order of the Joint Collector, Warangal in RC E5/566/2006 dated 05.05.2007. C.R.P.No.2335 of 2007 is by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the proceedings, whereas C.R.P.No.4705 of 2008 is by 119 revision petitioners, who obtained leave of this Court to challenge the impugned order in their revision in C.R.P.MP.No.5961 of 2008.The factual background for the revisions is that one Hanumantha Rao was the pattadar of the land in Survey Nos.1017, 1018, 1019 and 1020 of an extent of 5.10 guntas, 10.12 guntas, 2.21 guntas and 6.39 guntas respectively of Madikonda village, Hanamakonda Mandal and Royyala Lachulu was recorded as the protected tenant of the land. When persons claiming under the original pattadar desired to have the protected tenancy certificate said to have been issued under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short "the Act") cancelled, the Revenue Divisional Officer, War...
G.Sivanna S/O G.Pedda Linganna Adoni, Vs. the Commissioner for Prohibi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1.This Writ Petition has been filed by G.Sivanna assailing the order passed in C.R.No.8421/2010/CPE/M4, dated 10.6.2010 passed by the Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad-1st respondent. 2.The District Collector and Auctioning Authority, Kurnool District-2nd respondent issued notification in District Gazette, Kurnool dated 27.05.2010 inviting tenders for the lease of right of selling of Indian made foreign liquor and foreign liquor by shop under Rule 5 of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for brevity, "rules 2005"). The petitioner and N.Triveni-4th respondent and four others submitted tenders in respect of G.Sl.No.28, i.e., shop at Adoni, Kurnool District. The tenders were opened on 7.6.2010 and the 4th respondent became the highest bidder having offered Rs.1,11,99,000/-. At the time of opening sealed tenders, the 4th respondent remained absent. Therefore, the petitioner being 2nd...
The Union of India Vs. T. Satyanarayana and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1.The Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, had preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, against the order dated 17.03.2009 made in O.A.A.No.231 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad. 2.The respondents in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed cross objections being aggrieved of non-granting of interest to the applicants-claimants/cross objectors as claimed by them. 3.Heard Sri T.S.Venkataramana, the learned Standing Counsel representing the appellant and Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, the learned counsel representing the respondents/applicants-claimants/cross objectors. 4.Sri T.S. Venkataramana, the learned Standing Counsel representing the appellant would maintain that the Railway Claims Tribunal should have appreciated that the deceased-Kamalakar, fell down from a running train and the incident happened due to the negligence of the deceas...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »