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.
Medikeri Tilak and 5 Others Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
:: 1. A1 to A6 in S.C.No.305 of 2003 on the file of the Court of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar preferred this Criminal Appeal aggrieved by the judgment dated 07-01-2004 wherein they were convicted and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 147 IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304 Part-II r/w. 149 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts in brief are that on 19-11-2001 at about 07.30 p.m., PW-1 along with other villagers was watching a documentary film on child labour at the Gram Panchayat Office. While so, A1 to A6 arrived there and started quarrelling with PW.1 and tried to attack him. However, PW.3 village kawalakar who happened to be present there intervened and pacified them by sending A.1 to A6 towards kindi...
Ganesula Uma Parvathi Vs. Ayitam Rama Swamy,west Godavari District and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
:O R D E R :1. This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the order dated 04.10.2010 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.(Sr.)2296/31.05.2010 in purported exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the material available on record.3. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner had earlier filed O.S.No.1193 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur for recovery of money allegedly due from the 1st respondent herein and the same was decreed by judgment dated 25.03.2006. Pursuant thereto, when the revision petitioner filed E.P.No.70 of 2007 for sale of the schedule property, the 2nd respondent herein filed E.A.No.545 of 2007 under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. claiming title to the schedule property under a registered settlement deed dated 02.12.2002 said to have been executed by the 1st respondent. Th...
V.Gopala Krishna Murthy (Gkm Valluri) Trainee Officer Vs. M/S Narne Es ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The facts of the case as set out in the complaint that the complainant had taken membership vide No.16708 and plot No.EC-IV-AA-65 by paying a sum of `53,000/- by the year 1999. Since the opposite party had not taken developmental activity, the complainant requested the opposite party to put the plot for resale and allot the same to a new member and to refund the amount paid by him. As the opposite party could not find any new buyer he kept the plot in the complainants name. On 20.1.2007 the complainant obtained statement of account from the opposite party showing the balance as `53,000/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party. The opposite party on 3.6.2008 informed the complainant over phone that his membership was cancelled. The complainant got issued a notice dated 5.6.2008. As there was no reply, the complainant filed C.C.No.500 of 2008 which was disposed of on ...
M/S Kaveri Indane Services Lpg Gas Dealer Vs. K.Rajaram and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The opposite party no.1 is the appellant. 2. The complainant is consumer of the opposite party no.1 with Consumer No.00045. The complainant booked for a refill on 29.12.2007 which was not delivered to him till 10.4.2008. The complainant is a resident of Gudi Kandula village 13 kms away from Siddipet. The complainant has purchased kerosene at Siddipet due to non-supply of the refill by the opposite party no.1 and his wife became sick because of preparation of the meals by other modes of cooking. 3. The opposite party no.1 resisted the claim contending that the complainant neglected to take the refill when its staff had been to the house of the complainant on 29.12.2007, 2.1.2008 and 5.1.2008 to supply the refill and on all the three occasions the house of the complainant was found locked. The complainant has been residing at Siddipet due to which the refll could not be delivered to him. 4. The opposite party no.2 has resi...
M/S Narne Esttes (P) Ltd., Rep. by Its Chairman and Managing Director ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The opposite party is the appellant. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the complaint. 2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant had taken membership vide No.17565 on 20.03.1994 for allotment of plots No.10 and 11 in East City Sector V by paying a sum of `54,000/- in instalments during the period 20.03.1994 to 2.12.1996. Since the opposite party had not taken developmental activity, the complainant requested for refund of `54,000/- with interest thereon. After several visits and reminders, the complainant received `54,000/- from the opposite party without interest. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 4.12.2006 and filed the complaint seeking interest @ 12% per annum from 20.03.1994 to 4.12.2006. 3. The opposite party filed its counter resisting the claim and contended that the allotment of the plots were made subject to the condition that the allottee had to pay the ...
T.H.Rajeshwar Rao Vs. the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition ( ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
:ORDER: 1. The instant writ petition is by one T.H.Rajeswara Rao seeking a direction to the first respondent i.e., the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) to pay compensation for the land admeasuring Acs.0.08 guntas 24 Sq.yards in S.No.246 situated at Ankushapur village, Ghatkesar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, or in the alternative to allot the same extent of land to the petitioner.The petitioner allegedly purchased the subject land from Padamati Balreddy under a registered sale deed dated 10.7.1986 being document No.3252 and about twelve years thereafter on 16.7.1998 obtained pattadar pass book and title deed (PPB).2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 25.10.2000 he applied to the Gram Panchayat seeking building permission. While the same was pending he commenced excavation work on 21.5.2001 for construction of compound wall. He alleges that the officials of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL - the third respondent) objected for the excavation. The petitioner then fi...
Rasani Sambaiah Vs. the State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
:ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash proceedings dated 20.03.2009 of respondent No.4.2. After elaborately hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Forests, I am of the opinion that this Writ Petition in effect raises a money claim by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, under the agreement between him and respondent No.4, he is entitled to transport charges in respect of 1097.47 cubic meters as against which charges in respect of 900 cubic meters alone were paid leaving balance transport charges in respect of 197.47 cubic meters. It is the further case of the petitioner that the rates were misquoted by relying on an incorrect FSR code and subsequently the same was rectified.3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4 denying the claims of the petitioner on both the counts. Indeed, at the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Forests placed reliance on proceedings in Rc.No.7370/2002/A2...
Chodi Mahalakshmi Vs. Koppada Sathiraju and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
:: 1. The first defendant in O.S.No.1 of 1990 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 30-04-1981 executed by the first defendant free of the mortgage said to have been created by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant.2. The allegations in the plaint goes to show that the schedule property, which is an extent of Ac.5.85 cents of land, belongs to the first defendant and she agreed to sell the property for a consideration of Rs.78,000/- on 30-04-1981 and received a sum of Rs.40,000/- and the possession was delivered. The time for payment of the balance amount of Rs.38,000/- was fixed as one month i.e., before the end of May 1981. The first defendant undertook to discharge the debts owed by her to the L.M.B and thereafter undertook to give the title deeds relevant to the schedule property and the possession of the property was delivered in part perf...
M.Satyanarayana and Others Vs. M/S Farm Vision Agritech Rep. by Its Ma ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The unsuccessful appellants are the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case as seen from the complaint are that on 29.5.2004 the appellant no1 purchased 300 packets of kaddi variety of F1 Hybrid chilli seeds @ `220/- per packet and on 3.6.2004 they had purchased 30 packets of same variety of each weighing 10 grams by paying a total amount of `72,600/- from the respondent no.1. The respondent no.3 is the manufacturer of the seeds. After purchase of the seeds the appellants have planted the seedlings in their lands by following the instructions of the respondents no.1 and 2. The appellants have applied manure and pesticides as directed by the respondents no.1 and 2. The appellants spent a total amount of `7,25,000/- for raising chilli crop in Ac.29.10 towards cultivation expenses apart from the cost of the chilli seeds. The appellants have taken all the steps by using fertilizers and pesticides, and they appellants g...
Country Club (India) Limited Represented by Its Authorized Signatory V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
Oral order:(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in CC No.474/2008 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad, the opposite party preferred this appeal. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant joined as a Member in the scheme floated by the opposite party and paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- for purchase of a plot at Golf Village. The complainant approached the opposite party to know the details of the registration of the plot but did not receive any response. He therefore made many efforts to withdraw from the membership but the opposite party denied his request for withdraw of the membership and refund the amount collected from him. The matter has been taken to the Alternative Consumer Redressal Department of Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies for settlement under non-legal measures and the said agency issued three notices but the opposite party did not turn up. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to refund an amount of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »