Andhra Pradesh Court April 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 Superintendent of Customs Vs. Mohd. Younis Alias Ahmed
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
1. This is an appeal against acquittal of the accused/respondent recorded by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No.511 of 2004 by Judgment dated 23.08.2005 finding the accused/respondent not guilty of the charges under Sections 21(c), 22(c) and 23(c) / 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act). It is the prosecution case that on 27.06.2004, the prosecution agency viz., Customs Air Intelligence Unit intercepted the accused after he completed immigration, customs and security checks in Rajiv Gandhi International Air Port, Hyderabad while the accused was holding his passport boarding pass and air ticket for boarding into flight No.EK 525 to go to Dubai and that officers of Customs Air Intelligence Unit detached baggage slips from boarding pass of the accused and got the baggages unloaded from the air craft and those baggages were identified as his baggages and that baggage of the accused contained Bunogesic and Buprigesic i...
Racharla Shyamala Vs. the L.i.C. of India Rep. by Its Branch Manager a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
D. Appa Rao, President: 1) This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the Dist. Forum declining to extend benefits under the policy while allowing basic amount. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband Racharla Tirupathi had taken Jeevan Mitra (with triple cover endowment plan with accident benefit and profits) policy keeping her as nominee for a sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- commencing from 28.5.2006 wherein R2 the Divisional Engineer, Northern Power Distribution Company agreed to deduct premiums from out of his salary he being employed as junior lineman. He died on 12.11.2006 during the subsistence of the policy. When the said fact was intimated to the insurance company it did not settle the claim, and on that after issuing legal notice she filed the complaint claiming Rs. 6,15,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of death till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony, and costs. 3) The insurance ...
Mittapally Govardhan Vs. Manchala Rajeswari and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) These appeals are preferred by opposite party No. 2 against the order of the Dist. Forum directing him to pay the amounts covered under the fixed deposit receipts (FDR) with interest @ 9% p.a., along with Op1. 2) Though separate orders were passed in each of these complaints in the light of the fact that a common questions of fact and law arise, we deem it fit that a common order can be passed in all these matters. 3) The case of the complainant F.A. 779/2008 is taken as a representative case, since the facts of other cases are also similar in brief is that he deposited Rs. 5,000/- with Sri Chakra Shareholdings for which appellant and Op1 are directors vide account No. 10 dt. 24.4.1995. Though the maturity date was yet to come he sought for refund of the amount as they failed to get permission from the Reserve Bank of India and despite repeated requests they failed to refund the amount, and therefore he filed the complaint clai...
Commissioner of Incometax Vs. M/S Anantha Gas Suppliers
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. We have heard Sri V.R. Badri, the learned counsel representing Sri S.R. Ashok, learned counsel for the Revenue and Sri C.P. Ramaswamy, the learned for the assesses. In fact R.C. No. 238 of1996 came up for consideration before two of us (Justice B Prakash Rao and Justice R Kantha Rao) in the Division Bench. 2. The reference involved the following questions. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in treating the transport vehicle as consisting of two parts viz. Cylinder and vehicle and allowing depreciation on the cylinder at 100% and not at 40%? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in holding that the cylinder mounted on the vehicle which was used for the transport of liquefied petroleum gas was liable for depreciation at 100% and not at 40%? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT ought to have held that the transport vehicle was inseparable and two differ...
Shriram Investments Ltd. and Another Vs. B. Nagaraju and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
Oral Order: D. Appa Rao, President: 1) This is an appeal preferred by opposite party No. 1 and 2 Shriram Investment Ltd., against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it pay Rs. 40,000/- together with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an employee in Singareni Colonies Ltd., and resident of Godavari Khani. The opposite party held camps at Karimnagar for expanding its business viz., financial services. The branch office at Khammam agreed to advance money for purchase of a tipper under hire purchase agreement, and accordingly advanced an amount of Rs. 7, 50,000/- on 8.6.2005 where under he was liable to repay the amount in 36 EMIs. Accordingly he paid Rs. 2, 65,603/- towards 14 instalments to the agent when he came for collection. Since he was busy with his office duties he intended to sell it away and repaid the entire loan. When he approached Op2 it had agreed to issue No Objection Certificate. While cancelling the agreement it demanded Rs. 98...
Vyshnavi Stone Crushers, Rep. by Its Partner, Gaddam Ram Babu Vs. the ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President) Heard both sides. This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of dismissal of its complaint for default. The appellant alleges that the date of hearing was noted wrongly as 08-3-2011 instead of 03-3-2011 and that led to dismissal, since he could not appear on the said day. In view of the fact that the advocate was not present on the said date of hearing, the complaint was dismissed. No doubt, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to set aside the default order. At any rate, since both parties have let in evidence in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that one more chance could be afforded to the complainant to advance arguments. In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the District Forum is directed to afford opportunity to both sides to advance arguments and dispose of the matter on merits. However, no order as to costs. Both parties are directed...
S. Venkata Subbaiah Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
Oral Order: D. Appa Rao, President: 1) This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against order of dismissal of his complaint for non-representation. 2) Now, he alleges that on the date of hearing he could not appear and requested his colleague to represent. However, she could not represent, and consequently the complaint was dismissed. 3) The Dist. Forum on an application filed by the complainant to restore the complaint to its file along with an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act opined that there was no evidence to show that the advocate was engaged in some other work and that he requested his colleague to argue the matter etc., and therefore refused to set-aside the dismissal order dt. 22.6.2009. 4) No doubt the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction to restore the complaint dismissed for default. The respondent except denying in fleeting words did not dispute that the advocate has entrusted the matter to his colleague as he could not attend on the said day as he was engaged in t...
C.K. Putturao Vs. Sri Venktaeswara Trust and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an engineer and intended to purchase three ships for his fishing industry to eke out his livelihood. Luring by the advertisement made by the respondent trust that it would lend the amount he approached the Chairman and Managing Director of the trust who agreed to sanction Rs. 51 crores repayable with interest @ 5% p.a. On that he paid Rs. 10,000/- towards application and subscription fee and the officials of the trust collected Rs. 8,76,555/- from him on various dates on the pretext of sanction of loan. However, no amount was sanctioned. On that he sent a registered notice for which a false reply was given. Since it amounts to unfair trade practise and deficiency in service he sought for refund of Rs. 8,76,555/- with interest @ 12% p.a., together compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs and costs. 3) The respondent trust did not choose to contest t...
The Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Another V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in CC No.36/2008 on the file of District Forum, Kurnool opposite parties preferred this appeal. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant insured her life with the opposite parties for the last two decades and was extending the insurance cover for many years. She submitted that on earlier occasion also, the opposite parties did not renew the policy and insisted for baseless and unnecessary requirements and upon the indulgence of Honble Ombudsman and Honble Forum, it was renewed. It is her case that the complainants Medi claim policy once again was kept on hold by the opposite party inspite of receipt of premium well within time. The renewal of the said policy should be done routinely when the required premium is paid within time. She submitted that though they are legally obliged to straight away renew the policy, they are strangely insisting for fresh medical reports without any relevan...
The General Manager South Central Railway Rail Nilayam Secunderabad an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
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. 90,000/- towards compensation together with interest @ 9% p.a., from 28.11.2009 till the date of realization besides costs of Rs. 1,000/-. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he along with his wife, daughter and son-in-law travelled from Hyderabad to Kadapa in train No. 2797 Venkatadri express on 27.11.2009 by spending Rs. 3,045/- towards fare excluding IRCTC charges. At around 3.00 or 4.00 a.m. he woke up he found that the train was stopped at Gooty. When he enquired with co-passengers they informed that some goods wagons were derailed near Kadapa, and therefore train was stopped. They learnt that train would be diverted via Dharmavaram, Yashwanthpur, and Katpadi to Tirupathi. They were also directed to get down at intermittent stations from Gooty to Tirupathi. He contacted the railway staff whether any al...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »