Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
The Lakshmipuram Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd., Rep. b ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The brief facts as seen in the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and a member of opposite party no.1 society had taken a long term loan of `21,500/- vide loan A/c No.3036 96/Lt dated 29.11.1996 from the opposite party no.2 through the opposite party no.2 society by depositing title deeds towards security of the loan. The complainant has paid five isntalments and the last fifth instalment of `7923/- including interest was paid on 12.9.2001. The complainant in order to file nominations for the post of Director of the society approached the opposite party no.1 for return of the title deeds. The Secretary of the society postponed the same from time to time for several times. The complainant addressed letters dated 20.8.2003 and 25.7.2005 to the opposite party no.1 but the opposite party no.1 did not give any reply. The opposite party no.2 did not take proper st...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sampeta Ravi
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
D. Appa Rao, President: Oral: 1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Khammam, directing it to pay Rs. 87,200 with interest at 9% per annum, besides compensation of Rs. 10,000 and costs of Rs. 1,000. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the owner of an auto bearing No. AP 24 V-5645 for which an insurance policy was taken covering the period from 29.11.2005 to 28.11.2006 for a sum of Rs. 87,200. While so, on 12.3.2006 it met with an accident for which a case was registered under Crime No. 24/2006. When claim was made, the Insurance Company repudiated the same, and on that a notice was given for which the Insurance Company gave reply confirming repudiation of the claim on the ground that it was carrying ten passengers more than the limit prescribed. Assailing the said repudiation, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest at 12% per annum together with compensation of Rs. 25,000. 3. The Insu...
K. Vishwanath and Another Vs. M/S Jyothi Hospitals and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The complainants are the appellants. The first complainants wife after becoming pregnant approached the opposite party no.1 hospital pertaining to the opposite party no.2 and she had undergone blood test, urine test, ultrasound scan prescribed by the opposite party no.2. She was admitted to the opposite partyno.1 hospital for delivery on 24.9.2006. The opposite party no.2 performed caesarean section on the first complainants wife on 25.9.2006. The second complainant was born and she and her mother were discharged from the opposite party no.1 hospital on 2.10.2006. The first complainants wife approached the opposite party no.1 hospital on 4.10.2006 with abdominal pain and urinary problems. The second opposite party after conducting tests such as blood test, urine test etc., declared that the patient was suffering from jaundice and dysfunctioniong of kidneys. The patient was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet Hyderabad w...
Sri Vinayaka Modern Rice Mill Rep. by Its Proprietor, Sanapala Krishna ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The factual matrix leading to filing of the appeal and as setout in the complaint is that the complainant is a rice mill represented by its Proprietor Sanapala Krishnamurthy. The rice mill was having electrical service connection no.147 and running with 40.2 HP. The service connection was provided on 100 KVA DTR in the year 1988. In the year 2005 the complainant had applied for additional load of 8 HP and the opposite parties had sanctioned load of total 48.2 HP. The complainant had another service connection no.17 with 15 HP and also had a residential service No.89 in the same premises. The service connections of the complainant were connected to 63 KVA DTR in the year 2005 by removing them from 100 KVA DTR. The complainant had applied for additional load of 25 HP to the rice mill and the same was sanctioned on 5.1.2007. The complainant requested the opposite parties to c...
Dr. K. Sivaramakrishnaiah, M.S. Opth Vs. Dasari Venkata Jaya Hari Rao ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The opposite party no.1 is the appellant. 2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that on 31.10.2004 the complainant underwent cataract operation to his left eye in the opposite party no.1 hospital and continued to receive post operative treatment till 15.11.2004 as an outpatient. As the complainant suffered with severe pain and discharging of water from the operated eye, he approached Dr.G.V.Prasad of Machilipatnam on 16.11.2004 who advised him to go to LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad. On 18.11.2004 the complainant immediately approached L.V.Prasad Institute, Hyderabad where the doctors conducted re-operation on the operated eye since there is damage to the cells due to leakage. The complainant had undergone treatment till 8.03.2005 as an outpatient. Even after re-operation the complainant got 50% vision. The doctors of LV Prasad Eye institute opined that the operation conducted in the hospital of the oppos...
Smt. U. Mary Vs. the State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2011
:: 1. The petitioner herein was tried in C.C. No. 39 of 2000 by I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. DW1 was examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused. Having analysed the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court, by its judgment dated 31.01.2003, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charged offence, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced her to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years. Questioning the judgment, the petitioner-accused filed Crl.A.No. 29 of 2003, and the learned Sessions Judge, Warangal, while concurring with the findings arrived at by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal and sentenced her to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and also compensation of Rs.75,000/- to PW1 - wife of the deceased, instead of sentence of imprisonment. Challengin...
Gatta Rattaiah Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
:: 1. The Plaintiff in O.S.No.292 of 1999 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, (O.S.No.496 of 1988 on the file of Subordinate Judge), Guntur, is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.53,753.05 Ps. with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum.2. The plaintiff was appointed as a Contractor for loading, unloading, handling and transport at FCI Godowns, Nambur and Rail Head and vice-versa as per the Tender, dated 01-01-1985. A concluded contract was entered. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was furnished as security deposit in the shape of Bank Guarantee. As per the terms, the stock shall be transported from Nambur-FIC Godowns to M.G. & B.G. Goods shed at Guntur via Balaji Weigh Bridge, Guntur or vice-versa, so also from other railway slidings. The Balaji Weigh Bridge is located at 14th cross road, near Collector's Office, Guntur. The rates were fixed keeping in mind the transport being at Balaji weigh bride. Some time after the suit contract between t...
Ledalla Ravichandar and Another Vs. M/S Satyam Computer Services Limit ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
:: 1. The City Civil Court Appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.327 of 1994 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, are the appellants herein. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/-. 2. According to the case of the plaintiff, the first defendant was offered as Programmer Trainee vide letter dated 26-03-1993 on a consolidated stipend of Rs.2,250/- per month and the first defendant signed the letter of appointment on 05-04-1993 agreeing the terms and he underwent training. As guaranteeing the due performance of the terms, the second defendant stood as a surety and both the defendants executed a surety bond on 27-04-1993 and subsequently, the first defendant joined on 03-05-1993, at programme training and was paid stipend at the rate of Rs.2,250/- per month and after successful completion of the training, he was absorbed into the plaintiff company as Software Engineer vide appointment letter, dated 15-12-1993 with retrospective effect i...
Umakanth Padhi Vs. Poornachandra Padhi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
:COMMON ORDER: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent.2. C.R.P.No.2259 of 2009 is filed by the tenant against the judgment and decree dated 01.05.2009 in R.C.A.No.1 of 2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram in R.C.C.No.2 of 2006.3. C.R.P.No.4900 of 2009 is also filed by the tenant against the order dated 06.10.2010 in E.A.No.190 of 2010 in E.P.No.1 of 2009 in R.C.C.No.2 of 2006 passed by the Rent Controller-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram.4. Both the civil revision petitions relate to the same subject matter of the dispute and between the same parties. Hence, they are disposed of by the following common order.5. The landlord filed eviction petition against the tenant under Section 10(2)(i), 10 (c) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. In response to the eviction petition filed ...
U. Raju Kumar Vs. M/S Jana Harsha Estates N Construction Pvt. Ltd., Re ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The facts of both appeals are identical in nature and therefore, we propose to dispose of the appeals by a common order. F.A.No.838 of 2008 is taken as lead case. 2. The complainant being dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum has filed the appeal contending that the District Forum has not perused the affidavit and documents filed by her and directed the respondent to refund the amount despite it having held that the appellants membership in the scheme is alive and in force. 3. The appellant joined the scheme launched by the respondent company for purchase of house plot . The respondent assigned membership bearing number 21690-NS and allotted plot bearing number BGT-299 admeasuring 120 sq.yards in LIG unit, at Sector IV, Dream City-II,Ranga Reddy District for a consideration of `42,000 inclusive of first installment. The amount was payable in 50 E.M.Is @ `700/-per installment. The appellant has paid an amount o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »