Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
V. Parvathalu S/O. Mallaiah, H.No.2-3-19 Vs. the Municipal Council, Ka ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 12668 O05. 02-2013 V. Parvathalu S/o. Mallaiah, H.No.2-3-195, Kaman Road, Karimnagar The Municipal Council, Karimnagar Municipality, Karimnagar Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. Rama Rao Counsel for the respondent: Sri Polisetty Radhakrishna : ?Citations:1. 1979(1) aplj PG 14.2. AIR 198.AP 2.3. 1990 (2) ALT 20.D.B. ORDER: This writ petition is instituted by a practitioner of law, challenging the legality and validity of the notice issued on 29.06.1996 by the respondent in terms of Section 228 (3) of the Municipalities Act, 1965, directing demolition of a certain portions of the first and second floors of the building, constructed by the petitioner bearing H.No.2-3-195, Kaman Road, Karimnagar. The case of the petitioner is that, he has constructed a building comprising of a single floor sometime during 1972-73 and it was assigned house No.2-3-195, Kaman Road, Karimnagar. The petitioner has proposed to make an addition to t...
Gullapalli Sooreedamma Vs. Bandaru Trinadhudu and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU SECOND APPEAL No.111 o05. 02-2013 Gullapalli Sooreedamma Bandaru Trinadhudu and another Counsel for the appellant: Sri Aravala Rama Rao. Counsel for the Respondents: : : Cases referred: JUDGMENT: The plaintiff who succeeded in the trial Court and who lost in the lower appellate Court is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff is sister of the defendants 1 to 3/respondents 1 to 3. She filed the suit in the trial Court for specific performance of Ex.A.1 agreement for sale dated 26.08.1987 said to have been executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in her favour for the plaint schedule items of land after receiving entire consideration thereunder and delivered possession of the lands thereunder. After exchange of notices as per Exs.A.2 and A.3, the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendants denied Ex.A.1 agreement for sale and also pleaded that Ex.A.1 might have been fabricated by the plaintiff. In effect, they denied the entire transaction ...
Sri Narendra-veerabhadra Swamivarla Deva Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.24478 o05. 02.2013 Sri Narendra-Veerabhadra Swamivarla Devasthanam State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ^Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu !Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4: AGP for Endowments Head note: Cases referred:1. AIR 199.SC 251.2. AIR 199.SC 12.3. (2011) 9 SCC 35.4. 1995 (1) ALT 67.5. 2008 (3) ALT 9.The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, which is a religious institution left hapless by the utter negligence on the part of the respondents in completing the land acquisition proceedings and paying compensation, knocked at the doors of this Court to render justice. The facts which are not in dispute are that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have proposed to acquire an extent of Acs.3.74 cents in R.S.Nos.239/2, 34, 297/3 and 208/1 &2 of Nangegadda...
The Branch Manager M/S. Shriram Investments Limited Vs. Papi Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
(Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Incharge President) Aggrieved by the order in CC 117/2009 on the file of District Forum, Nizamabad, the opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant is a driver and owner, having a Harvester vehicle No.PB046854 which was financed by the opposite party for Rs.3,00,000/- and the said amount was to be repaid @ 14,000/- p.m. The complainant submitted that he repaid an amount of Rs.3,43,000/- by 04-4-2007. The complainant submitted that though the instalment amount was to be paid by 2008, opposite party began pressurizing the complainant to pay the balance amount. The complainant further submitted that the personnel of the opposite party received the amount but for some of the instalments, they have not issued proper receipts. The complainant submitted that he was paying the monthly instalments regularly and paid more than Rs.3,43,000/- and the opposite party did not issue receipts and also received payme...
The Branch Manager M/S Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Rep. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
(Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Incharge President) Aggrieved by the order in CC 12/2010 on the file of District Forum, Nizamabad, the opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant is a driver and owner of Ashok Leyland Lorry make of 2002 bearing No.AP-24U-8379 and he invested Rs.5,00,000/- and the balance of Rs.5,00,000/-was financed by the opposite party and the said lorry was delivered to him in 2006. The amount was to be repaid in 60 monthly instalments and the personnel of the opposite party received the amount but for some of the instalments, they did not issue receipts on the pretext of issuing them later. The complainant submitted that he was paying the monthly instalments regularly and paid Rs.6,00,000/-. The complainant submitted that though there were no dues, the opposite party seized the vehicle illegally at Nellore by detaining the goods in it and at the time of seizure received Rs.40,000/- without passing any receipt....
G.Pal Vijay Kumar S/O.Arogyam, Aged 45 Y Vs. the State of A.P., Throug ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.170 o04. 02-2013 G.Pal Vijay Kumar S/o.Arogyam, aged 45 years, R/o.82/682, Dyanapriya Building, Madhav Nagar, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. The State of A.P., through the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: SRI RAMESH KUTHUMBAKA COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : ?CITATIONS:1. 2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 748 (AP) 2) 1957 Crl.L.J....
The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sanga V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Oral Order: (Smt. M. Shreesha, Member) 1) The appellant insurance company while preferring the appeal against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 1 lakh with interest @ 9% p.a., from 1.11.2011 till payment together with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- filed the above application u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 10 days on the ground that copy of the order was received by it through its counsel at Dist. Forum on 9.10.2012 with an advise to prefer the appeal. They in turn forwarded it to its Regional Office for its approval, in the meantime a delay of 10 days had occasioned. It is neither wilful nor wanton, and therefore prayed that the delay be condoned. 2) The respondent resisted the petition. He alleged that no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay nor explained where exactly the delay had occasioned. Relying on the following judgements of Apex Court and National Commissi...
Hdfc Bank Limited Rep. by Its Manager (Car Loans) Vs. Yarlagadda Krish ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Oral Order: (Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The opposite party is the appeallant. 2. The brief facts of the complaint as seen from the complaint are that the complainant purchased Mercedes Benz car from M/s Adishwar Auto Diagnostics by availing a loan from the opposite party. The opposite party sanctioned loan of Rs.40,00,000/- and by paying balance amount the complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 03-04-2008. The opposite party paid Rs.40 lakhs on 18-03-2008 instead of Rs.38.15 lakhs to Adishwar Auto Diagnostics, Hyderabad . On enquiry the opposite party stated that they have kept one instalment with it out of the loan instalment. The complainant paid balance amount to a tune of `14 lakhs as also six monthly instalments. The complainant had suddenly gone to United States of America on his business purpose and prior to that the complainant addressed a letter to the opposite party to furnish account copy in detail. The opposite party failed to do so and the complain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›