Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
M/S. Murugan Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Ddf ( Davood Fruit Mercha ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.91/2008 on the file of District Forum-1 Chittoor , the opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased apples from M/s. Bhagavandoss and Sons, Delhi and the apples worth Rs.26,08,907/- , 50,785 kgs. And the same were stored in the cold storage of the opposite party and the relevant receipts were issued by the opposite party. The receipts are dt.10.12.2007 to 2.1.2008. On 12.3.2008 onwards when the complainant was lifting the stock he was informed that 20 lakhs worth stock was damaged and the complainant took photographs and CD for proving the same. The complainant submits that it was only because of mis management of the opposite party that his stock was damaged and he got issued legal notice on 26.6.2008 calling upon the opposite party to compensate for the loss for which the opposite party replied on 12.6.2008 denying his liability. Hence the complaint ...
Pantham Tammi Raju Vs. the Executive Engineer A.P. Housing Board and A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
ORAL ORDER: (Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the Dist. Forum directing him to pay Rs. 35,035/-, for executing registered sale deed by the housing board. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that on his application, H.No. 17 at Kakinada was allotted by the housing board the respondent on the basis of draw of lots conducted on 8.3.1981. He paid 20% of the estimated cost as required besides instalments in time in all Rs. 58,993/-. When he sought for registration the officials of the housing board did not respond. While so by its letter dt. 1.4.2006 after 9 years it directed him to pay Rs. 5,267/- as due, and the same was to be paid within 15 days so that registration could be made in his favour. Accordingly the said amount was paid. When there was no response he invoked the provisions of Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and addressed a letter on 18.5.2006 on which the respondent housing board dem...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›