Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
Mr.G.Man Mohan Hari Prakash,s/O.Mr.G. Ramaswamy Vs. the State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
:ORDER: 1. The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. in CC.No.862 of 2009 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. It is alleged that the accused entered into agreement with Sripad Commodity and Derivatives Private Limited, Secunderabad, traded in commodities and became liable to pay Rs.30,62,880.80 paise and that towards discharge of the said liability, the accused issued cheque dated 15.06.2006 for the said amount in favour of the above company and that the said cheque was bounced for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused and that the accused issued the cheque with an intention to cheat the de facto complainant. 2. The main contention on which this petition is filed is to the effect that another complaint was filed by the complainant against the petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC.No.890 of 2007 and that when it is pending trial, the present case CC.No.862...
Konduri Venkata Rao and Others. Vs. the State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
:ORDER: 1. A curious question has been posed by Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, with reference to Section 452 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). He contended that the accused had not committed the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC since the alleged criminal trespass by the accused was into the house of P.W.2, whereas the offence is alleged to have been committed against P.W.1 and that as the very offence of criminal trespass defined under Section 441 IPC is not made out, the question of the accused being guilty for the offence under Section 452 IPC does not arise. 2. As many as 19 accused were charged for the offences under Sections 147, 452, 325, 354, 427, 341 and 506 (2) IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bapatla found A.1 to A.3 and A.8 guilty of the offences under Sections 452 and 353 IPC. He acquitted the rest of the accused for all the charges levelled against them. He also acquitted A.1 to A.3...
Budagala Nageswararao Vs. the State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
:ORDER: 1. The sole accused is the revision petitioner. He was convicted by the learned V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur for the offence under Section 324 IPC for causing simple hurt to P.W.1. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- with appropriate default sentence. The learned trial Judge directed that Rs.500/- out of the fine amount shall be paid to P.W.1 towards compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the sole accused preferred appeal. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, allowed the appeal in part. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur confirmed the conviction of the sole accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC. He also confirmed the fine and compensation awarded by the learned trial Judge. The appellate court, however, set aside the imprisonment recorded against the accused by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the conviction, the sole accused preferred the present revision. 2. Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, le...
Dr. Keki Pheroze Vs. Deccan Aviation Ltd. Rep. by Its Manager Now Rep. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) This is an appeal preferred the complainant against the order of the Dist Forum in not awarding any compensation towards mental agony and directing only refund of the amount spent towards tickets etc. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a retired professor and civil surgeon at Osmania General Hospital. His services have been availed by several corporate hospitals and also served in the premier hospitals at Saudi Arabia as consultant and presently working as consultant in SVR Hospital at Ameerpet, Hyderabad. While so he had to attend the marriage of his nephew in Bombay on 9.2.2007 and as an elder in his family his presence was absolutely necessary. There upon he booked to and fro tickets on 15.1.2007 for his journey from Hyderabad to Bombay on 9.2.2007 at 12.40 p.m and return journey from Bombay to Hyderabad on 12. 2. 2007 at 02.30 p.m. An amount of Rs. 5,502/- was drawn by the respondent through credit card t...
M/S. Broadway Food Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. M/S. Sai Kri ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 3,90,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the complaint till realization together with costs of Rs. 2,000/- with an option to take back the goods from the godown. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that it is a partnership firm engaged in supply of goods i.e., food products to its customers. Under an agreement it was appointed as super stockist by the appellant. It in turn distribute to its distributors and customers. While so the appellant sent food products worth Rs. 3,90,000/-, however, when it received there was shortage of goods and that too in a damaged condition. It had received several complaints from distributors as well as customers. Despite its complaint the appellant did not respond. As against Rs. 3,90,000/- it has received stocks worth Rs. 3,10,000/- through its CandF agent i...
Sanga Reddy Ananda Reddy Vs. the State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
:: 1) The appellant/accused who was working as Mandal Agricultural Officer Peapully, Kurnool District was convicted by the Additional Special Judge for S.P.E and A.C.B. Cases, Hyderabad by judgment dated 07.11.2003 in C.C. No.27 of 1995 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) and was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count separately.2) P.W-3 is son of P.W-1 and was running business in fertilizers, pesticides and seeds under the name and style of Kamadhenu Fertilisers at Peapully, with valid licences. The seeds licence was valid upto 25.05.1994. Therefore, for renewal of the said licence, application was given as per Ex.P-2 on 25.04.1994 to the accused for forwarding the same to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool for renewal of seeds licence. It is alleged that when P.W- 1 who is father of P.W-3 approached the accused on 25.04.1994 along with renewal application, the ...
M/S Navya Chaitanya Housing Rep. by Its Managing Partner G.Giridhar Vs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The opposite party no.1 is the appellant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainants joined as members in Sainadam venture of the opposite party no.1 for allotment of plot nos.865 and 482/A respectively by paying an amount of `97,500/- each in instalments by 20.9.2001. The opposite party no.1 assured the complainants to provide a site of 250 sq.yards near Atehampet Junction near ADB Road apart from providing roads, electrification, drainage system etc. After payment of the entire amount, the complainants requested the opposite party no.1 to furnish approved lay out and other documents. The opposite party no.1 postponed the same on one pretext or the other. The opposite party addressed letter dated 1.2.2002 to all the members informing that M/s Navya Chaitanya Housing Pvt Ltd., was merged with the opposite party no.2 M/s Navya Chaitanya Housing, Kakinada. The complainants got issued a legal notice d...
Kuchakula Surendar Reddy and Another Vs. Sikhahara Constructions and O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Since both the complaints deal with similar facts they are being disposed of by a common order. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that opposite parties 1 to 3 are doing real estate development of plots into residential complexes and approached opposite parties 4 to 7, landlords for development of their property and entered into a registered Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney with opposite parties 4 to 7 vide registered document No.3456/2005 dated 29-8-2005 in accordance which the opposite parties 1 to 3 are permitted to construct a residential complex consisting of 20 flats for which opposite parties 4 to 7 are entitled to 50% of the total built up area. Opposite party no.1 represented by opposite parties 2 and 3 approached the complainant and he entered into agreement of sale in the proposed residential complex in respect of flat No.102 admeasuring 1700 sq. ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs...
The Chief Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Y. Ve ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) This is an appeal preferred by the insurance company opposite party No. 2 against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 2,85,050/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of order together with costs of Rs. 950/-. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the owner and proprietor of Venkateshwara Bar and Restaurant situated at D.No. 12-610 to 12-612 at Bellampally X Road, Mancherial. He started his business in the year 2005 in a rented premises bearing above said municipal house number owned by one Nitin Kumar with all approvals and license from Prohibition and Excise Department by order dt. 1.7.2005. He had obtained loan from R1 A.P. State Finance Corporation an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs on the above said premises. He got insured his building, furniture, fixtures etc. from the appellant under Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy commencing from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007. While so on 1.3.2007 the sai...
Peddi Narayana Swami Vs. the Managing Director Kamineni Hospitals L.B. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay a sum of `25 lakh and `25,000/- towards costs. 2. The averments of the complaint are that the complainants son Shivram Prasad who was aged about 27 years was admitted to the opposite party no.1 hospital at 9.a.m on 6.12.2006 for treatment of an injury to his left leg and three days thereafter the doctors of the opposite party no.1 hospital informed the complainant that they had performed operation and his son was recovering well. The complainants son reported to the complainant that doctors and nurses did not attend on him properly and he was subjected to pain and suffering. About 5 p.m. on 12.12.2006 the doctors of the opposite party no.1 hospital informed the complainant that his son died at 4 p.m. on that day and they refused to furnish copy of the case sheet to the complainant. The complainants son was unmarried and having conducted enq...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »