Andhra Pradesh Court October 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.
Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (Y Vs. the Government of Andhra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.29980 OF2013dated:16-10-2013 Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP).Hyderabad.....Petitioner. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others......Respondents For the PetitioneRs.Mr.Y.Nagireddy For the Respondents : GP for Home for 1 to 4 respondents. M.V.S.Prasad, Standing Counsel for 5th respondent (SAAP). : ?.CITATIONS: 1. (2004) 4 SCC6842. 2013(1)CTC314 3. AIR1960SC6334. AIR1970SC1228THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.29980 of 2013 ORDER: The petitioner, a recognized political party, in this writ petition challenges, the validity of the orders passed on 12-10-2013 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Hyderabad, rejecting the request made by it for permission to conduct a public meeting on 19-10-2013 at Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad. As per the directions of My Lord the Hon'ble Chief Justice, this writ petition was taken ...
Pallagura Hymavathi Vs. Amancherla Venkateshwarlu and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2013
Oral Order: (Smt. M. Shreesha, Member) 1) Aggrieved by the order in CC No. 136/2010 on the file of the Dist. Forum, Ongole, the complainant preferred this appeal and along with it the above application to condone delay of 650 days in filing the appeal on the ground that she is a senior citizen aged about 67 years suffering from various ailments like high B.P., diabetes etc. and that there is no body to look after her matters. Under the above circumstances, she could not contact her counsel to prefer the appeal within the prescribed time and thus a delay of 650 days had occasioned. The delay in preferring the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton and therefore prayed that the delay may be condoned. 2) In the light of the fact that delay is an inordinate 650 days without any material whatsoever to substantiate the delay, we do not wish to order any notice to the respondent as no improvement could be made by the petitioner/appellant in regard to the plea urged. The provisions of Civil Proce...
R.P. Surendra Kumar Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Chittoor B ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2013
Oral Order: (Smt. M. Shreesha, Member) 1) Aggrieved by the order in C.C. No. 57/2011 on the file of the Dist. Forum, Chittoor, the complainant preferred this appeal. 2) The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant got his lorry bearing No. AP 16 U 8758 insured with the opposite party insurance company for IDV of Rs. 3 lakhs covering the period from 24.09.2011 to 23.9.2002. While so, on 18.5.2002 it met with an accident near Hosakota, Bangalore. On a report the police registered it as a case in Crime No. 174/2002. The complainant approached the opposite parties with relevant documents to settle the claim and prepared to surrender the vehicle. The insurance company without proper verification sent a letter dt. 27.9.2002 settling the claim much below the estimates. The surveyor also estimated the loss. The complainant submits that he presented the quotation for spare parts and repairs at Rs. 3,78,710/-. On account of non-settlement of claim the complainant incurred ...
B. R. Koteshwara Rao Rep. by His Gpa Holder Smt. J. Vara Laxmi Vs. the ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2013
Oral Order: (Smt. M. Shreesha, Member) 1) Aggrieved by the order in CCIA No. 147/2011 in CCSR No. 3730/2010 on the file of the Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad the complainant preferred this appeal. 2) The appellant/complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party for a direction to allot a suitable flat in Attapur Housing Complex for a consideration of Rs. 3,99,500/- payable in three equal instalments on possession of the flat and to pay compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs and costs of Rs. 10,000/- along with it an application u/s 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act to condone delay of 1633 days in filing the complaint. It is averred in the application that she could not file the complaint as she was suffering from heart problem and she was under the bonafide impression that the matter would be settled amicably, however, it could not be materialized. There is no wilful intention in not filing the complaint within the prescribed period. 3) The respondent/opposite party filed counter resisting...
The Managing Director, Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. and Others Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2013
Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.19/2012 on the file of District Forum, Vizianagaram, the opposite parties preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased 300 Non-convertible Debentures of Rs.1000/- each totalling to Rs.3,00,000/- from opposite party company through branch at Vizianagaram and the debentures were issued under the signatures of opposite parties 1 to 3 and their maturity value is Rs.4,16,700/- and the maturity date is Rs.30-3-2010. The details of the debentures are as follows:Sl NoCertifi cate No.Date of Invest mentAmount Invested Rs.Redempt. Value Rs.Date of Redempt.No. of debentures15006013030-3-0740,00055,56030-3-104025006013130-3-0740,00055,56030-3-104035006013230-3-0740,00055,56030-3-104045006013330-3-0730,00041,67030-3-103055006013630-3-0740,00055,56030-3-104065006013730-3-0740,00055,56030-3-104075006013830-3-0740,00055,56030-3-104085006013930-3-0730,00041,67030-3-1030Total3,0...
The Project Director, M/S. Sitco Pvt. Ltd., Kukatpally (a Joint Ventur ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2013
Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.124/2008 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy, the opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants are joint owners of flat No.AN4-C/01/05 admeasuring 1000 sq. feet (including common areas and balconies) in first floor, Block Vista, Andaman 4 with undivided share of 41 sq. yds. with one car parking place No.ST-10 at Raintree park in Sy.No.1009/1 (part) in (Malaysian Township) Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy district having purchased the flat under Regd.Sale deed No.3858/06 dated 25-3-2006 from APHB and SITCO and since then are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the flat. The complainants submitted that they entered into a construction agreement dated 25-3-2007 with the opposite party to purchase the completed flat with all amenities such as water, electricity, drainage and car parking which are paid separately including car parking. The construction of fl...
Nano Products Head Passenger Car Business Unit, Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2013
Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.397/2011 on the file of District Forum-I, Visakhapatnam, the opposite party No.3 preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a car Indigo LS Dicor Tata Make from the showroom of opposite party No.1 after paying down payment and by availing loan of Rs.4,40,000/- from opposite party No.2 on 11-9-2009 vide Loan account No.5000460399 for a total cost of Rs.5,88,746/-. The complainant submitted that the vehicle ran only for six months with many more complaints and the defects were brought to the notice of opposite party No.1. The inherent defect in the engine is that while running the car, all of a sudden it stops on the middle of the road for reasons not known to the complainant. Every time the 1st opposite party personnel used to attend to it and made the car run temporarily but again the same defect was repeating and it is only due to inherent defect in the core...
M/Sjaiprakash Associates Limited, Rep. Vs. thesuperintending Engineer, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2013
HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.35628 OF2012dated:11-10-2013 M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited, Rep. by its President Sri Anil A.Kamat, S/o Atmaram Kamat, Aged about 61 years, H.No.6-3-1099/1100, Plot No.10, Behind Babukhan's Millennium Centre, Somajiguda, Raj Bahvan Road, Hyderabad.... Petitioner The Superintending Engineer, I and CAD Department, Government of A.P., AMRP Circle-I, G.V.Gudem, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District and five others ... Respondents Counsel for the petitioner:Sri V. Bhaskar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and CAD Department for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 Learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 : ?.Cases referred: HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.35628 OF2012ORDER:- (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Challa Kodandaram Ram) The petitioner, a public listed company, engaged in the busi...
Yakkala Mohana Vs. Shaik HussaIn and Anot
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2013
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.512 of 2013 Dated 11-10-2013 Yakkala Mohana Rao...appellant. Shaik Hussain and another...Respondents Counsel for appellant: Sr.N.Narasimha Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sr.G.L.V.Ramana Murthy HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred 1. 2004 (6) ALD175(FB) 2. (1996) 5 SCC483 1994 (1) ALT154. 2002 (4) ALT639THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.512 of 2013 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 29.04.2013, in A.S.No.5 of 2012, passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District. The 1st respondent in A.S.No.5 of 2012 is the appellant herein. The 2nd respondent herein, viz., Javvaji Ramaiah, filed O.S.No.228 of 2000, against the 1st respondent, in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed and after the decree became final, he filed E.P.in the Court of Principal District Judge, Piduguralla. An item of immo...
Shivraj Sangh Vs. Keshav Deo Dalmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY CRP No.5998 of 2005 dated:11-10-2013 Shivraj Sanghi ....petitioner Keshav Deo Dalmia.....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sr.N. Chandradhar Rao. Counsel for Respondents: : : ?.Cases referred: 1 1995(2) ALD6192 AIR1978DELHI2553 1976 THE ANDHRA WEEKLY REPORTER4264 (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 413 5 1996(4) ALT6666 (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 289 7 1997 (3) ALT5118 1996 (4) ALD959 2007(6) ALD49710 AIR1998SUPREME COURT1395HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY CRP No.5998 of 2005 ORDER: The revision petitioner herein is the landlord who filed RC No.712 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground of willful default in payment of rents. The case of the petitioner is that he filed RC alleging that he is the ".Kartha". of Shivraj and sons, the owner of the premises bearing No.5-1-1068/1, situated at Gowliguda, Hyderabad and the respondent Keshav Deo ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »