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.
iffco-tokyo General Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. D. Vijay Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2012
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The respondent is the owner of the auto bearing no.AP-20-W-8875 and he had taken policy from the appellant vide policy cover note No.33396540, valid from 21-6-2006 to 20-6-2007. The respodnent used to give his auto on rent basis to one D.Ashok Kumar of Yellandu town, Khammam. On 29-4-2007 while the driver of the auto was proceeding with passengers from Palvoncha towards Kothagudem, one R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-5820 belonging to Manchiryala depot being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the auto from opposite direction. As a result the occupants and the driver of the auto sustained bleeding injuries. The auto of the respondent was totally damaged. On a complaint lodged by the driver of the auto, police Kothagudem III town P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.94/2007 for the offence u/s.338 I.P.C. against the driver of the R.T.C. bus. The respondent requested t...
Ms. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Ku Vs. S.Mohan Rao So S.Venkatesw ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.Order:1. This civil revision petition is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.3665 of 2010, which was filed by the respondents for permanent injunction. The petitioners filed I.A.No.54 of 2011 in the Court of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C for rejection of plaint in view of the provisions of Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act'). The said application having been rejected, the petitioners filed the present civil revision petition.2. At the hearing, Sri K.Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that on receipt of notice dated 05-8-2010 of reference of dispute to an arbitral tribunal, the respondents instituted O.S.No.3665 of 2010 for permanent injunction against the petitioners on 17-8-2010 without disclosing pendency of arbitral proceedings. He further submitted that an ex parte award was passed on 20-11-2010 in favour of the petitioners as the r...
Sri P. Ramanaiah and Others Vs. Greater Hyderabad Municpal Corporation
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
ORDER : [Per GR,J] 1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor - learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Radhakrishna Reddy - learned Standing Counsel for the 1st Respondent- Corporation, the Assistant Solicitor General for India for the 2nd Respondent and Smt.M. Bhaskara Laxmi - learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 & 4. 2. Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are the parents and petitioner Nos.3 &4 the siblings (sisters) of late Sri Pallapu Madhava Rao. The petitioners are all residents of Marutinagar, Champapet, Ranga Reddy District. Madhava Rao is claimed to have died by drowning in an unfenced drain abutting the road maintained by the 1st Respondent on the intervening night of the 9th and 10th August, 2008, allegedly on account of the 1st respondent's negligence in taking due care to fence the drain or otherwise protect unwary passersby from drowning therein. The incident is asserted to have occurred at the unfenced open drain abutting the road near the arch at Balajinagar, Sridhar Colony, K.V.R. Pragati Scho...
Ms.Udari Lata Maisaiah Vs. the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological Unive
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.ORDER:1. The petitioner by the time of filing of the Writ Petition was in IV year 1st semester B.Tech (Bio-technology) course studying in the 2nd respondent's college i.e. Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology, Ghatkesar, Hyderabad, which is affiliated to 1st respondent University. She was not allowed to take IV year 1st semester examinations scheduled from 08.11.2010, on the ground that she was not having required percentage of attendance. Questioning the same, the petitioner approached this Court with this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking 'Writ of Mandamus.' At the outset, Sri L.Ravi Chander, advocate who submitted arguments on behalf of the petitioner, fairly conceded that in case the petitioner did not have 65% of attendance, then she is not eligible for appearing for the examinations and that the petitioner has no remedy before this Court.2. The 1st respondent's counsel placed reliance on B.Yugandhar Vs. Princi...
Gowri Shankar Vs. J.L.Babu and anr
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J.Order:1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 29-08-2011, in IA.No.1711 of 2010 in OS.No.1401 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. I have heard Sri P.Ramachandran, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.2. The petitioner is defendant No.1 in OS.No.1401 of 2007 filed by respondent No.1 for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The petitioner has been resisting the suit mainly on the plea that respondent No.1/plaintiff has forged his signature on the agreement of sale. The petitioner has earlier filed IA.No.1011 of 2008 with a request to send the disputed signatures for comparison with his admitted signatures, to the handwriting expert for his opinion. The said application was allowed by the Court below. Respondent No.1 filed CRP.No.2199 of 2009 before this Court against the said order. The said CRP was allowed by this Court by setting aside the order of th...
Mangala Pagadala Subbamma Vs. M. Narayanappa
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.ORDER:1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 23-6-2011 of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram whereby he has allowed the Memo filed by the respondent, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.73/2008, to close the evidence on his side reserving his right to let in further evidence after the petitioner-defendant completing his evidence. I have heard Sri N. Aswarthanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.2. The respondent filed the above mentioned suit for declaration of his title to the suit property against the petitioner. After adducing evidence on his side, the respondent filed the above mentioned Memo with a request to the Court below to close the evidence on his side with liberty to him to lead further evidence after completion of the rebuttal evidence of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the Court below has taken notice of the said Memo on 9-6-2010, but no counter-affidavit w...
Prajay Engineers Syndicate Limited, Rep. Vs. the District Registrar an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.ORDER1. The petitioner and three others presented a partition deed dated 25.01.2008 before the second respondent for registration. The second respondent found that the stamp duty paid on the document was not adequate. Therefore, he referred the matter to the first respondent for determination. The first respondent, in turn, issued a notice dated 05.10.2010, informing the petitioner that a sum of Rs.60,89,625/- is payable towards deficit stamp duty and Rs.5,85,775/- as shortfall of registration fee. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.07.2011, to the respondents stating that in case the respondents feel that the document cannot be registered, they would withdraw the document and cancel the transaction; and in that view of the matter, there is no necessity for registration at all.2. The first respondent however issued proceedings dated 01.08.2011, in exercise of powers under Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for...
Ms.Jairaj Ispat Limited, Rep. by Its Ma Vs. A.P. Electricity Regulator ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) 1. The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission entertained a Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) claim made by the Andhra Pradesh Power Co-ordination Committee on behalf of the four Distributing Companies (DISCOMS) in the State for the financial year 2008-09 and by its proceedings dated 05.06.2010 permitted them to levy FSA charges as indicated therein on all consumers, except LT agricultural consumers, for the four quarters of that financial year. The proceedings dated 05.06.2010 came to be challenged before this Court in a batch of writ petitions by aggrieved consumers. The learned Judge who heard the writ petitions at great length framed the following questions for consideration: 1) Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, against the impugned order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission? 2) Whether the Andhra Prad...
M/S.Jairaj Ispat Limited, Rep. by Its Ma Vs. A.P. Electricity Regulato ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE WRIT APPEAL NOS.858 OF 201.AND BATCH 20 01-2012 M/s.Jairaj Ispat Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, S.K.Goenka and others. A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission,Rep. by its Secretary,A.P. Singareni Bhavan,Red Hills, Hyderabad and others. Counsel for appellants: Sri C.Kodandaram, learned senior counsel for Sri Challa Gunaranjan, Sri K.Gopal Choudary, Sri C.R.Sridharan, Sri K.V.Upendra Gupta, Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, Sri Dhulipalla VAS Ravi Prasad,Sri K.Raghu Babu. Counsel for respondents : Sri P.Sri Raghuram, Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel representing the DISCOMS. CASES REFERRED:1. AIR 195.SC 66.2) (2010) 4 SCC 49.3) (2010) 8 SCC 68.4) 2010 (257) ELT 3 (SC) 5) (2009) 5 SCC 79.6) (2005) 6 SCC 34.7) (1984) 3 SCC 12.WRIT APPEAL NOS.858, 924, 925, 946, 948, 949, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 978, 979, 980, 981, 999, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1012, 1022, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1029, 1031,...
Sri P. Ramanaiah and Others Vs. Greater Hyderabad Municpal Corporation ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No. 16188 OF 200.20-01-2012 Sri P. Ramanaiah and others Greater Hyderabad Municpal Corporation,At Tankbund, Hyderabad, rep., by its Commissioner and others. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor Counsel for the Respondents No.1:Sri Radhakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents No.2: Asst. Solicitor General for India. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : Smt. M. Bhaskara Laxmi Cases referred:1. (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 736. 2. AIR 197.Bomba3. (1994) 4 SCC 22.4. (1971) 1 SCC 28.5. (1991) 4 SCC 27.ORDER : [Per GR,J] Heard Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor - learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Radhakrishna Reddy - learned Standing Counsel for the 1st Respondent- Corporation, the Assistant Solicitor General for India for the 2nd Respondent and Smt.M. Bhaskara Laxmi - learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 & 4. Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are the parents and petition...