Andhra Pradesh Court January 2013 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.
Smt. Kodebattula Varada Rajeswari Vs. Sri Vempati Ramakrishna and Othe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO C. R. P. No. 264 o22. 01.2013 Smt. Kodebattula Varada Rajeswari Sri Vempati Ramakrishna and others. Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, Advocate Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri S. Surya Prakasa Rao, Advocate : ?Cases referred:1. 2005 (1) ALT 13.(D.B.) 2.2002 (2) Law Summary 420 ORDER: - 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenging order dated 19.07.2005 in A.T.A No.109 of 2001 and in cross objections of Appellate Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") i.e. Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru reversing the order dated 30.09.2001 of the Tenancy Tribunal- cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur in A.T.C No.84 of 1995.2. A.T.C No.84 of 1995 was filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 under Section 16 of the Act to declare that he is a tenant of the A.T.C p...
Syed Javeed Vs. District Legal Services Authority,rangar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.36074 OF 201.22.01.2013 Syed Javeed District Legal Services Authority,Rangareddy District, rep. by its Chairman, At L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. Yadaiah Counsel for respondent: Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi (GIST: (HEAD NOTE: ?Cases cited: ORDER: (Per G. Rohini, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order of the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, R.R. District dated 10.01.2012 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to legal aid under Section 12 (h) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is arbitrary and illegal. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') deals with the criteria for entitlement of legal services under the Act. Clause (h) of Section 12 with which we are concerned ...
Mallu Venkatramana Reddy and 7 Others Vs. Gandluri Govinda Reddy and A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU SECOND APPEAL No.979 o21. 01-2013 Mallu Venkatramana Reddy and 7 others Gandluri Govinda Reddy and another Counsel for the Appellants : Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy for Sri S.Srinivasa Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S.V.Bhatt : : Cases referred:1. (2000)7 Supreme Court Case2. AIR 200.SC 230.3) AIR 200.SC 38.4) 1977 ALT 53.5) (1996)6 Supreme Court Case6. (2003)8 Supreme Court Case7. (2010)6 Supreme Court Cases 193 JUDGMENT: Unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below are the appellants in this second appeal. Originally the plaintiffs filed the suit in the trial Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit site. Subsequently plaint in the suit was got amended and prayer in the suit was altered from permanent injunction simplicitor to one of declaration of the plaintiffs' title to the suit site and for consequential permanent injunction. The plaint schedule...
Sri Mahalakshmi Mines and Minerals. Vs. the Union of India and Others.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.8641 o21. 01.2013 Sri Mahalakshmi Mines and Minerals. The Union of India and others. Counsel for petitioner:Sri S.R.Ashok, Sr. Counsel/Sri P.Roy Reddy Counsel for Respondents: Smt.S.Nanda for R1 GP for Mines and Geology for R2 to R4. HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred ORDER: The petitioner is a Firm, undertaking the activity of mining. It submitted an application, on 25.10.2008, before the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Vizianagaram, the 4th respondent herein, with a request to grant mining lease over an extent of Acs.11.92 cents of land n survey Nos.338/1 to 7 and 339/1 to 18 of B.P.Varakatta Village, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Since Manganese happens to be major mineral, the competent authority to grant lease is the State Government, the 2nd respondent herein. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder mandate that, before the State Gove...
Mallu Venkatramana Reddy and 7 Others Vs. Gandluri Govinda Reddy and A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.8641 o21. 01.2013 Sri Mahalakshmi Mines and Minerals. The Union of India and others. Counsel for petitioner:Sri S.R.Ashok, Sr. Counsel/Sri P.Roy Reddy Counsel for Respondents: Smt.S.Nanda for R1 GP for Mines and Geology for R2 to R4. HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred ORDER: The petitioner is a Firm, undertaking the activity of mining. It submitted an application, on 25.10.2008, before the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Vizianagaram, the 4th respondent herein, with a request to grant mining lease over an extent of Acs.11.92 cents of land n survey Nos.338/1 to 7 and 339/1 to 18 of B.P.Varakatta Village, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Since Manganese happens to be major mineral, the competent authority to grant lease is the State Government, the 2nd respondent herein. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder mandate that, before the State Gove...
Ankem Siva Nageswara Rao Vs. Ravi Teja Chit Fund Company Ltd., Rep. by ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Incharge President Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.275/2009 on the file of District Forum, Guntur, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant joined as a Member in the chit reference No.RSA2G1 for Rs.50,000/- with a monthly subscription of Rs.2,500/- per month for a period of 20 months and was allotted token No.8. The complainant submitted that the second opposite party issued a passbook and he paid all the instalments after deducting the dividend from February, 2008 to July, 2009 i.e. 18 monthly continuously and receipts were also issued and the same was entered in his passbook. The complainant submitted that in the month of July, 2009 the complainant approached the opposite parties and asked them to give the chit amount as only two instalments are due and the 2nd opposite party promised that he would pay the chit amount after deducting his commission to the complainant. The complainant submitte...
Vooda Bangara Raju Vs. M/S Shriram Chits Pvt Ltd., Rep. by Is Branch M ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The complainant is the appellant. He has filed the appeal challenging the order of the District Forum whereby the complaint was partly allowed against the respondent directing it to pay interest @9% p.a. on the amount of `2,01,950/-from 20.12.2009 to 28.02.2009 within three months failing which with 12% interest and costs of `7,000/-. 2. The parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint. The complainant was a member chit No.3385/82002/40 of which the value of the chit is `25 lakh and monthly subscription payable is `50,000/- over a period of 50 months. The complainant is also subscriber of another chit of `5 lakhs payable in 50 monthly instalments. The complainant paid nine instalments of `3,26,070/- and thereafter issued two cheques of `32,500/- and Rs.65,000/- towards the installments due, to the agent of the opposite party. On 2.12.2009 the opposite party returned the cheques issued by the complainant on 18.7.2009...
Byrraju Rama Raju and Others Vs. Kambam Maheshwara Reddy and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
Oral Order: (Smt. M. Shreesha, Member) 1) The opposite parties 2 to 4 filed the above applications to dismiss the EAs filed by the complainants against them as no liability could be fastened on them. The above EAs have been filed by the complainants for non-compliance of orders of this Commission dt. 27.4.2012 wherein this Commission has directed the petitioners along with Maytas Properties Ltd. (MPL) to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a., from respective dates till the date of payment along with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh, and costs of Rs. 10,000/-. 2) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no deficiency of service can be attributed to them as no wilful act has been committed by them. They stated that pursuant to the orders of the CLB on 13.1.2011, 1) M/s. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd., 2) M/s. ILand FS Financial Services Ltd., and 3) M/s. ILandFS Engineering and Construction Company Ltd., (the ILandFS group) were ...
The Secretary Large Seized Co-operative Society Limited Vs. M. Shiva M ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Incharge President Since all these appeals deal with similar facts, they are being disposed of by a common order. F.A.No.840/2011: Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.60/2010 on the file of District Forum, Nizamabad, the opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant attracted by the scheme of the opposite party society deposited the following sums as follows:S.No.DateAmountMaturity DateMaturity Value114-5-199955,000/-14-5-2004Rs.1,10,000/-227-5-199966,000/-27-5-2004Rs.1,32,000/-303-7-199963,000/-03-7-2004Rs.1,26,000/-Total1,84,000/-Rs.3,68,000/-The complainant submitted that the deposits matured on the respective dates mentioned and after maturity, the complainant approached the opposite party and surrendered the deposit receipts and requested to pay the maturity amount. But the Secretary of the opposite party stated that the said amount would be credited to the Savings Bank account of the complain...
Mrs. Anees Ejaz Vs. the Chairman M/S. Narne Estate Pvt Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
Oral Order: (Sri. R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The complainant filed the complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, complaining deficiency in service against the opposite party and seeking direction to the opposite party to register the plots and refund the excess amounts paid by the complainant along with compensation and costs. 2. The complainant joined as a member in the scheme, Central Park Phase-III launched by the opposite party company. The opposite party company allotted him plot no.465 admeasuring 300 sq.yards and the respondent paid a sum of `2,50,000/- in the month of February 2002 and agreed to pay an amount of `3,000/- per month. The opposite party informed the complainant that for Rolling Meadows they can get the approval of layout and it would effect registration of plot as soon as she makes full payment. The complainant agreed to purchase four plots No.160, 161, 162 and 163 admeasuring 300 sq.yards each out of which one plot was in lieu of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »