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.
N.Uligappa (Minor), Reptd by His Father- Vs. the Chairman and Managing ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.34856 o02. 01.2012 N.Uligappa (Minor), Reptd by His father-N.Malingappa The Chairman & Managing Director,APCPDCL, Hyderabad and another Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Sanyasi Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri O.Manoher Reddy,Standing Counsel for APCPDCL CITATIONS: (1997) 7 SCC 29.ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.8 lakhs to the petitioner towards compensation for loss of his left leg and right hand. I have heard Sri G.Sanyasi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner, who is a minor, represented by his father and natural guardian, is unfortunate to have lost his left leg and right hand due to electrocution on 04.12.2010. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for payment of compensation alleging negligence on the part of the respondents in maintaining 33 KV over head lines. In para 5 of the affidavit, filed in support...
Alaparthi Chinna Vs. Kota Lakshmi Satyanarayana and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10864 o02. 01-2012 Alaparthi Chinna Kota Lakshmi Satyanarayana and another Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N.Ravi Prasad Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Ch.Ravindra Babu Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor. ORDER : The petitioner/defacto-complainant filed this petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C for cancelling bail granted to the 1st respondent/accused in Crl.P.No.7709 of 2011 on 06.09.2011 by this Court in Crime No.73/2011 of I Town Police station, Tenali, Guntur District on the ground that by the time order of bail was passed by this Court, the accused was not arrested and remanded to judicial custody and that by misrepresentation of facts, the 1st respondent/accused obtained bail in this crime from this Court. 2) The 1st respondent/accused is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 323, 506, 509 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of...
M/S Narne Estates (P) Ltd., Rep.by Its Chairman Managing Director Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
Oral Order : (As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party assailed the correctness of the order of on the ground that the sale deed could not be executed on account of default committed by the respondent in making payment of development charges and registration charges and that the respondent is not entitled to the registration of the plot. . 2. The facts giving rise to filing of these appeal are that the respondent had applied for allotment of a plot and the appellant company allotted on 10-12-1993 the plot bearing NO.50 in Block BB, , Sector IV, at East City. The appellant company allotted membership number 16277 in favour of the respondent. The respondent had regularly paid the installments. The respondent has paid the cost of the plot of `30,000/-. Apart from the cost of the land, the appellant company asked the respondent to pay betterment charges as and when the land is developed by them. The respondent requested the appellant company as to when the development o...
M/S Narne Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Manju Mayuri
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
Oral Order (As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The opposite party assailed the correctness of the order of the District Forum on the ground that the sale deed could not be executed on account of default committed by the respondent in making payment of additional development charges and that the respondent is not entitled to the registration of the plot. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of these appeal are that the respondent had applied for allotment of a plot measuring 250 sq.yards and the appellant company allotted the plot bearing No.80 in Block B, , Sector V, at East City. The appellant company allotted membership number 25945 in favour of the respondent. The cost of the plot is `37,500/- excluding development charges. The appellant company issued allotment letter dated 30-03-1995 in favour of the respondent. The respondent had regularly paid the installments. The cost of the plot was payable in 44 installments @ `750/- per month. The respondent has paid the fi...