Andhra Pradesh Court October 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.
M/S Kapil Chit Fund (P) Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director R.O.3-1-63 ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. M/s Kapil Chit Funds Pvt Ltd and its branch office are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum whereby the appellants were directed to pay `18,450/- with interest @12% p.a. from the date of commencement of chit from 1.12.2008 till payment together with compensation and costs. 2. The respondent subscribed to chit group bearing numbers VIT01F-17, VMLO1F-23 and MVT02J-12 for chit value of `1,50,000/-, `1,00,000/- and for `5,00,000/-conducted by the appellant company and the chit period was for 50, 40 and 50 months on monthly subscription @ `3,000/, `2,500/- and `10,000- respectively. The chits were commenced from 24.09.2004, 30.04.2005 and 30.08.2007 respectively. The respondent has subscribed the amount so `33,000/-, `12,500/- and `Rs.30,000/- respectively under three chits. The respondent participated in the auction and was declared successful bidder in the third chit. The prize amount of the third ch...
Shriram Life Insurance Company Ltd. Rep. by Its Branch Manager U-con P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Order: (Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party insurance company against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 75,000/- covered under the policy with attendant benefits together with costs of Rs. 500/-. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband late D. Khasim took Shri Life insurance policy from the appellant insurance company for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- commencing from 15.9.2009. He died on 29.10.2009 due to breathlessness during subsistence of the policy. When she submitted her claim, the insurance company repudiated it on the ground that there was discrepancy of his age. Assailing the repudiation she filed the complaint claiming Rs. 75,000/- covered under the policy together with compensation and costs. 3) The appellant insurance company resisted the case. It denied each and every allegation made therein, however admitted that the deceased had taken the policy. Basing on the information provided...
M/S. Delta Builders and Another Vs. V. V. Satish Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
ORAL ORDER: (Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party builder against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to refund Rs. 2 lakhs with interest @ 12% p.a., from 6.12.2006 till the date of payment together with costs of Rs 2,500/-. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he intended to purchase a flat in the apartments constructed by Op1 for a sum of Rs. 6,30,000/- and paid Rs. 2 lakhs viz., Rs. 1 lakh on 8.11.2006 and Rs. 1 lakh on 6.12.2006. Despite his readiness to pay balance and obtain registered sale deed the appellant has been postponing on one ground or the other. Later he came to learn that the appellant had sold away the flat to a third party in July, 2007. Therefore he sought for refund of his amount besides compensation and costs. 3) The appellant builder resisted the case. While admitting that they offered sale of flat however alleged that neither the complainant nor his father-in-law never turned up despite...
The Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bontha Vija ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Order: (Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) This is an appeal preferred by the insurance company against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 2 lakhs covered under the policy with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband late Bontha Srinivasa Reddy had taken Janata Personal Accident (JPA) policy from the appellant insurance company for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs covering the period from 3.2.1999 to 2.2.2009 wherein she was kept as nominee. While so, on 22.11.2007 when he was travelling on TVS motor cycle along with his two friends, driver of the car drove it in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his vehicle on which they fell down. Some persons got down from the car killed the deceased with axes and knives . On report the police registered it as a case in Crime No. 121/2007 u/s 147, 148, 302 R/w 149 of IPC. When she informed the...
Bula Yedukondalu Vs. Nil
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Order of the Court Appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal is the applicant in Guardian O.P.No.120 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, East Godavary, Rajahmundry (District court). He filed that OP for appointing him as guardian of the minors Mande Naga Vinay and Mande Devi and for their property. That OP was dismissed by the District Court by order dated 15.09.2009. It is the correctness of that order which is questioned in this appeal. 2. It is not necessary to go into all the facts and circumstances under which the appellant claims to be appointed as guardian of the minors and their property. It would be sufficient to note that the appellant earlier filed a similar application i.e. O.P.No.19 of 2007 before the District Court but that was made over by that court to the Family Court at Rajahmundry and was re-numbered there as O.P.No.59 of 2008 and it was decreed by the Family Court by its order dated 18.06.2008. 3. On the plea that the Famil...
R. Sandhya Reddy Vs. the Sub-collector and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Utter lack of comprehension on the part of respondent No.1 has lead to passing of Order, dated 26-09-2012, in Proceeding No.G/I/321/2007, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. The petitioner is a temporary fair price shop dealer of shop No.19, Parsi Village, Govindaraopet Mandal, Warangal District. Respondent No.1 has issued proceeding, dated 06-09-2012, cancelling the petitioner's temporary authorisation. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner filed WP.No.29287 of 2012. This Court, while allowing the said Writ Petition on the ground that the order of cancellation was not preceded by any notice, made the following observations: "A reading of the impugned order does not show that any enquiry was held before cancelling the petitioner's temporary authorization. Respondent No.1 has merely relied upon a purported report dated 27.08.2008 submitted under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under Clause 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Orde...
M/S. Trimex Industries Limited,represent Vs. the A.P. Mineral Developm ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.26321; 26345 o09. 10-2012 M/s. Trimex Industries Limited,Represented by its Manager (Accounts) C.S. Mallikarjuna Rao, Alwarpet, Chennai The A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Khairtabad, Hyderabad Counsel for petitioner : Sri Vedula Srinivas Counsel for respondent : Sri V. Subrahmanyam, Standing Counsel HEAD NOTE: ?CASES REFERRED:1. (2004) 3 SCC 55.2. AIR 197.S.C....
R.Sandhya Reddy Vs. the Sub-collector,mulugu, Warangal Distr
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.31474 o09. 10-2012 R.Sandhya Reddy The Sub-Collector,Mulugu, Warangal District and 2 others Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies : ?Cases referred: NIL Order: Utter lack of comprehension on the part of respondent No.1 has lead to passing of Order, dated 26-09-2012, in Proceeding not G/I/321/2007, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. The petitioner is a temporary fair price shop dealer of shop No.19, Parsi Village, Govindaraopet Mandal, Warangal District. Respondent No.1 has issued proceeding, dated 06-09-2012, cancelling the petitioner's temporary authorisation. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner filed WP.No.29287 of 2012. This Court, while allowing the said Writ Petition on the ground that the order of cancellation was not preceded by any notice, made the following observations: "A reading of the impugned order does not show that any enqu...
M/S Crescent Real Estates and Developers Rep. by Its Sole Proprietor V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The first opposite party is the appellant. The first respondent filed complaint seeking for refund of the amount of `4,36,400/- with interest thereon and a sum of RS.4,00,000/- towards compensation and an amount of `25,000/- towards costs. 2. The first respondent paid on 15.10.2007 an amount of `4,34,600/- towards 1/4th sale consideration for purchase of Plot no.5 in Crescent Enclave a venture floated by the appellant-company. The appellant issued receipt in token of acknowledgement of receipt of the amount from the respondent. 3. The first respondent claimed for refund of the amount paid by him on the premise of the appellants failure to receive the balance consideration and execute sale deed and he has stated that he made oral representation and on phone as well about his request for execution of the sale deed by the appellant. 4. The appellant contended that as per the terms of the application form the first respondent agreed to pay 2...
M/S. Ahalada Rao and Associates, Rep. by Its Sole Proprietor Vs. M/S.R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Order: (Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President) 1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant against the order of dismissal of his complaint dated 05.09.2011 for not filing the affidavit evidence on the said day. 2. It is the case of the complainant that as his counsel was held up in Nampally Criminal Court and he could not reach the District Forum in time and in the process the complaint was dismissed. While preferring the appeal, the complainant requested this Commission to give him one more opportunity to file his affidavit evidence and dispose off the matter on merits. The fact that the complaint was dismissed for non-filing of the affidavit evidence was not disputed. Now the complainant is giving his explanation as to why he could not file his affidavit evidence on the date of dismissal of his complaint. This was not controverted. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that one more chance could be given to the complainant to file his affidavit evide...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »