Andhra Pradesh Court December 2011 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.
Kumaran Pangajam Vs. the Branch Manager Lic of India and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. She has filed the appeal challenging the legality of the order passed by the District Forum in C.C.No.89 of 2009. 2. VERSION OF THE APPELLANT The appellants husband during his life time obtained life insurance policy bearing No. 84153683 from the first respondent for sum assured of `1,00,000/- with accident benefit for a period of 16 years with the commencement of the policy from 28-07-2005. The appellants husband appointed her as his nominee for the benefits conferred on her by the insurance policy. The appellants husband died on 30-09-2007 when he fell down on the road while proceeding to his friends house. After the death of her husband, the appellant submitted claim with relevant documents enclosed thereto. The respondent corporation had repudiated the claim on 18-07-2008 on the ground that the insurance policy was in lapsed condition on the date of death of the appellant...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Divisional Manager, J.P.N ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.51/2002 on the file of District Forum, Warangal, opposite party No.2 preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant, a tailor, filed the complaint seeking compensation against opposite party nol1 who treated and performed surgery upon her left eye and the appellant insurance company who had issued professional insurance policy in favour of opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.1 performed surgery for I.O.L Surgery and IL.A. upon the complainant on 14-06-2001. The same day, the complainant was discharged from opposite party No.1 hospital and on 18-06-2001, she immediately approached him with complaint in the operated eye and the first opposite party informed her that the operated eye was infected and referred the complainant to L.V. Prasad Eye Institute where she was treated and on 20-10-2001 and 21-10-2001 the doctors at Hyderabad performed surgery by...
Tammina Durga Wo Venkateswara Rao (Late Vs. the State Rep. by Public P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.JUDGMENT:1. The appellant/accused was convicted by the lower Court under Section 8(c)/20 (b)(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act) and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-. Questioning the same, the accused filed this appeal. It is alleged that on 25.11.2001, 1 1/2 kgs of ganja was seized from possession of the accused near Nehru Statue, Srinivasa Mahal, Kothapeta, Vijayawada and that the accused was having the same without any licence or permit. Plea of the accused is one of total denial and not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found her guilty of the above charge.2. It is contended by the appellant's counsel that non-examination of Inspector of Excise who is a gazetted Officer is fatal to the prosecution inasmuch as it amounts to violation of Section 50 of the Act. It is further contended that PW.1 who is the lone independent mediator, examined by the prosecution, turn...
Sammeta Venkateswararao Vs. the State of A.P. Represented by the Pub
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
A.GOPAL REDDY; R.KANTHA RAO, JJ.JUDGMENT:1. This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 07.02.2007 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam in S.C.No.387 of 2003.2. The appellant-sole accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the charges under Sections 436 and 302 of IPC. The appellant was found guilty for both the charges, and was convicted. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in respect of the conviction for the offence under Section 436 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in respect of conviction for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.3. Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred the present criminal appeal.4. The appellant-Sammeta Venkateswara Rao is the brother of PWs.1 and 2. Sammeta Abhimanyudu (LW-1) is...
Mohd. RafiuddIn Vs. Sri Amruthlal
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
R.KANTHA RAO, J.ORDER:1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 15.04.2011 passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in I.A.No.746 of 2009 in O.S.No.39 of 2002.2. I have heard Smt K.Sridevi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.3. The revision petitioner filed the suit before the learned trial Court for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.07.1995 relating to immoveable property. As he failed to adduce evidence when the matter had come up for trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit for default on 07.11.2006 and the petitioner filed an application before the trial Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 876 days in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order dated 07.11.2006, whereby the suit was dismissed for default.4. The petition was opposed by the defendant contending inter alia that the petitioner was not...
1. Sakalabhaktula LalithA. Wo. Simhacha Vs. 1. Nandana Ranga Rao (Died ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.ORDER:1. Being aggrieved by the docket order dated 15-06-2011, passed in R.C.C. No.8 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.2. The Petitioners herein are the Respondents and Respondents herein are the Petitioners in the R.C.C. No.8 of 2007. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The first respondent herein is the landlord and the petitioners herein are the tenants of the schedule property. The first respondent herein filed R.C.C. No.8 of 2007 seeking to evict the petitioners on the ground that they committed default in paying the rents. While so, the first respondent herein died and after his death, respondents Nos.2 to 6 are brought on record as his legal representatives vide orders in I.A. No.14 of 2008, dated 16-09-2008. Subsequently, the petition...
The General Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd. and Othe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member)1. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 filed the appeal challenging the legality of the order passed by the District Forum whereas the complainant has filed appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation from `4,76,558/- as awarded by the District Forum to `8,15,547/-. 2. For the sake of felicity of expression the parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint. 3. The complainant purchased Toyota Innova bearing registration No.AP 03 AA 3201 on 16.6.2006 manufactured by the first opposite party and sold by the second opposite party who is the dealer of the first opposite party and insured the vehicle with the third opposite party insurance company of which the fourth opposite party is the branch office. The fifth opposite party is the authorized service centre of the opposite parties no.1 and 2. The insurance policy was obtained for a sum assured `8,15,547/-. The car was stated to have been parked in front of t...
M/S United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep. by Its Divisional Manager and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. Both appeals are the offshoot of the same order passed in CC 934 of 2008 by the District Forum whereby the opposite party insurance company has been directed to pay an amount of `1,91,000/-/ toward repairs of the vehicle and `50,000/- towards compensation and costs of `2,000/-. 2. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 have filed F.A.No.406 of 2009 questioning the legality of the order whereas the complainant has filed F.A.No.996 of 2009 seeking enhancement of the compensation. The parties referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint. 3. The complainant insured his Toyota Qualis car bearing registration No.AP 01F 4453 with the opposite party insurance company under comprehensive insurance policy bearing number 051901/31/06/0000069 for a period of one year from 4-05-2006 to 3-05-.2007 for a sum of `3,60,000/-On 5-08-2006 when the vehicle was proceeding from Hyderabad to Manchderial and when it reached Rangadampalli vill...
Mahanthi Lakshmana Rao and Another Vs. State Bank of India Rep. by Bra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
Oral Order:(Per Sri R.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Honble Member.) 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, East Godavari whereby the District Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant no.1 voluntarily submitted the proposal and had obtained the SBI life insurance policy from the 2nd opposite party. 2. The facts of the case as stated in the complaint are that the first appellant obtained loan from the first respondent bank under loan account bearing number HL 01593087790. The first appellant also has S/B Account bearing number 01190017291 with first respondent bank. The first respondent bank sanctioned loan in favour of the first appellant to the limit of `3,00,000/- which was released in phased manner from 28-04-2006till 9-8-2006. The first respondent bank without informing the appellants and without obtaining the consent of the first appellant, deducted an amount of `60,000/- and remitted the amount to the account of the second respond...
Tarakaturi Vijaya Babu and Others Vs. the Inspector General/Chief Secu ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
SRI MADAN B. LOKUR; GHULAM, JJ.JUDGMENT:1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.4.2011 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.20420 of 2010. In fact, by the judgment and order under appeal, the learned single Judge disposed of three writ petitions, but it appears that no appeal has been filed in respect of two writ petitions.2. The question that has arisen for consideration relates to the cancellation of the process for making promotions of Constables/Head Constables to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspectors in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). In our opinion, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge upholding the cancellation. Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.3. On 13.11.2009, the respondents issued a notification proposing to hold selections of Constables/Head Constables for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspectors in the RPF. The selection was to be conducted for one set of perso...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »