Andhra Pradesh Court January 2012 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.
Maturi Rangaiah Vs. Mutyala Venkata Lakshamma (Died) and Oth
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1383 o05. 01-2012. Maturi Rangaiah Mutyala Venkata Lakshamma (died) and others Counsel for the Appellant:Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. A. Giridhar Rao Mr. P. Venkat Rao ORDER: The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.84 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Markapur, is the appellant. He filed the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties comprising of Item No.1: a House at Nekhunambad Village and Item No.2: Acs.3-74 cents of land at Salakalaveedu village of Prakasam District. He pleaded that item No.2 and the eastern portion of the item No.1 fell to his share in a partition that took place in the year 1966 and that thereafter, he purchased the western portion of item No.1 from one Mr. Maturi Subbarangaiah and ever since then he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. According to him, the 1st respondent was...
Duddumpudi Venkatarayudu Vs. Duddumpudi Rajagopal Alias Tatabbai and
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1238 o05. 01-2012. Between: Duddumpudi Venkatarayudu Duddumpudi Rajagopal alias Tatabbai and another Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. T.S. Venkata Ramana Counsel for the Respondents:Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar ?Cases referred : AIR (15) 1928 P.C. 38 AIR (37) 1950 MADRAS 23 AIR (36) MADRAS 77 AIR (11) 1924 MADRAS 81 FB AIR 195.PATNA 55 ORDER: The sole defendant in O.S.No.108 of 2002 is the appellant in this second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.2. The 2nd plaintiff is the mother of the 1st plaintiff and the defendant. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession by evicting the defendant therefrom. Alternatively, it was pleaded that if any construction in the schedule property is found to have been removed, then, a sum of Rs.50,000/- be awarded towards value of the removed construction in addi...
Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation Vs. M/S Godavari Rubber Indus ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.513 o05. 01-2012 Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation Rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad & another M/s Godavari Rubber Industries (P) Limited,Rep. by its Director, Rajahmundry Counsel for the Appellants: Sri V. Srimannarayana Counsel for respondent : Sri K. Somakonda Reddy JUDGMENT: The respondent is a private limited company, and it established a small scale industry at Rajahmundry. It appears that it availed loan of about Rs.10 lakhs from the appellants. However, the industry did not function well, and has become sick. The unit was taken over by the District Collector. The circumstances under which, such taken over has occurred, are not immediately before this Court. The consortium of creditors have entrusted the task of rehabilitation of the unit to the appellants. At one stage, the unit was brought to sale and in the auction a sum of Rs.21,50,000/- was fetched. At that stage, the respondent offered to pay Rs.2...
The Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs. K. Narayana Prakash
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The respondent purchased motorcycle, Bajaj CT 100 on finance of `31,440/- extended by the appellant Bank. The loan amount is payable in 24 instalments @ `1442/- per month. The respondent paid 21 instalments in discharge of the loan amount and he could not pay three instalments i.e., from 7.5.2006 to 7.7.2006. The vehicle along with the documents was repossessed by the agents of the appellant bank in the month of August 2006. The respondent expressed his readiness to pay the amount due and requested the appellant bank to return the vehicle as also the documents. The respondent got issued notice on 26.3.2007 for which there was no response from the appellant bank. 2. The appellant bank resisted the claim contending that the chits issued for payment of instalments from April, May, July 2006 by the respondents w...
M/S Satguru Constructions P Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Partner Vs. N. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
Oral Order : (As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The first opposite party in the complaint is the appellant. The first respondent filed the complaint stating that she purchased Mulgi bearing number 3-3-4,R.P.Road ,Secunderabad, under registered sale deed bearing document number 828 of 2002 dated 4-07-2002 for consideration of `4,00,000/- of which the amount of `2,00,000/- was mentioned in the sale deed and the remaining amount was mentioned in the receipts. It is claimed that the Mulgi was not completely constructed and it was raised to the pillar level. It is contended that the appellant converted the mulgi into car parking area and being used for parking their cars by the other flat owners. The appellant said to have not delivered the possession of the mulgi to the first respondent. The first respondent stated to have made several representations to the appellant to complete the construction of the Mulgi and she came to know that there was no approval from the MCH for construct...
Sri B. Vijender Reddy Vs. M/S.H.D.F.C.Bank Limited
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
(Typed to the dictation of Smt. M. Shreesha Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.276/2009 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Tata Indigo L.S. car under Hire purchase scheme from Tata Motors on 3-9-2007 for a sum of Rs.5,11,992/- and the opposite party bank provided a loan of Rs.3,65,000/- and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- towards down payment for the said vehicle. On 09-9-2007, the vehicle met with an accident and was in the showroom for 10 months till 24-7-2008. The complainant paid 13 instalments of 1,36,110/- and also paid regular instalments upto 7-11-2008 together with cash of Rs.21,000/- on 28-6-2008 and Rs.20,940/- 22-7-2008 and 30-7-2008 respectively. On 13-9-2009 the bank sent a reminder to the complainant that he was due an amount of Rs.17694/-. The bank credited a sum of Rs.10,470/- on 9-9-2008 and also on 07-10-2008 but...
M/S Visakha Children Hospital (Visakha Modi Centre Pvt Ltd.,)rep. by D ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The revision petition is filed challenging the order of the District Forum whereby the delay of 1535 days in filing the complaint was condoned. The petitioners challenge the order of the District Forum on the premise that the observation of the District Forum that the cause of action is continuous since the respondent got issued notice dated 14-02-2006 and the petitioners issued reply on 21-02-2006. The cause of action arose on 11-09-2004 by which date the respondent stated that he came to know that the petitioners did not notice the dislocation of left hip revealed by the X-ray dated 19-02-2004 and thereafter no cause is shown for condonation of the delay. The complaint is not filed within the period of limitation from the date of the reply notice. 2. The father of the complainant has filed application to condone delay of 1535 days in filing the complaint stating that he took his daughter to the petitioners on 19-02-2004 for treatm...
G.Durga Prasad Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.ORDER:1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 02.12.2011, whereby respondent No.1 has confirmed order, dated 07.10.2000 of respondent No.2, cancelling the petitioner's Caste certificate, dated 09.02.1990, issued by respondent No.3.2. The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable on the strength of the Caste certificate issued in his favour by respondent No.3 as belonging to Madiga (SC) community. When complaints were received that he belongs to Golla caste, which is a backward caste, respondent No.2 has referred the complaints to the District Level Scrutiny Committee, Ananthapur (for short 'the Committee'). The petitioner appeared before the Committee on 18.09.2000 and produced the following documents:"1. Copy of Message Form dated 08.08.1993, in respect of Recruitment of Police Constables.2. Copy of T.C. bearing Serial No.02651.3. Copy of T.C. bearing Serial No.934. Copy of Residence Certificate bearing No.143, dated 27....
Patchala Sriramulu. Vs. Patchala Pola Rao.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.JUDGMENT:1. This appeal is filed against the dismissal of O.S.No.16 of 2002 filed by the appellant herein in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. The sole defendant is his brother. The suit was filed for partition of the suit schedule properties viz., a rice mill and vacant plots. He pleaded that some of the suit schedule properties were acquired by their father, and others, by their grandfather, and that they have devolved upon himself and the respondent, in equal shares. He made a reference to O.S.No.94 of 1993 filed by him in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram for dissolution of partnership firm and stated that a specific finding was recorded therein to the effect that the rice mill is not part of any partnership business at all. He has also stated that the respondent filed O.S.No.85 of 1992 against him for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property and that the suit was dismissed as not pressed. He ...
R. Ramaiah. Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.ORDER :1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the proceedings, dated 29.06.2006, issued by the 2nd respondent, in Letter No.1864/FF-II/A2/A2/2006, with a consequential direction to the respondents to sanction the freedom fighters' pension under the 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980'.2. The petitioner, who is aged about 72 years, states in the affidavit that he was a freedom fighter as he had participated in the freedom struggle against Nizams for liberation of Hyderabad State and Goa from Portuguese. It is stated that at a young age, inspired and attracted by the call given by the freedom fighters, he had participated in the Hyderabad Liberation struggle and did his best for liberation of Hyderabad State.3. During the Silver Jubilee year of independence, a central scheme for grant of pension to freedom fighters and their eligible dependants was introduced by the Government of India with effect from 15th August 1972. The said scheme was...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »