Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Annapurna Vs. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms,collect
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4523 OF2005dated:05-07-2013 Annapurna....PETITIONER Authorised Officer, Land Reforms,Collectorate Building, Visakhapatnam.And others.....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner :Smt. Sundari R. Pisupati for V.L.N.Gopala Krishna Murthy Counsel for respondent No.1 :Government Pleader for Arbitration Counsel for respondents 6, 7, 8 : Sr.M.Venkat Diwakar Counsel for respondents 2, 3 5 : Sr.A.S.C.Bose : ?.Cases referred: 1) 2000 (6) ALT31SC21998(1) ALT496(DB) 3)1999(4) ALD3214) 2004(4) ALT59HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4523 of 2005 ORDER: This revision is filed under Section 21 of the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, challenging judgment dated 13-06-2005 passed in L.R.A.No.3 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The brief facts of the cas...
Selco International Limited and Others Vs. L.V.R.infrastrures Pvt.Limi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE S.V.BHATT,J C.M.A.Nos.46 of 2012 and batch Dated:05-07-2013 Selco International Limited & Others .....Appellants L.V.R.Infrastrures Pvt.Limited....Respondent !COUNSEL FOR THE APPEPLLANTS :-Sr.Vedula Srinivas COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS :-Sr.S.Ravi Gidt: : ?.Citations: Air 1998 Andhra Pradesh 127 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sr.Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) These four civil miscellaneous appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') arise out of two interlocutory orders passed in two O.Ps., being O.P.Nos.1352 and 1353 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. While the appellants are common, the respondents are different. Since the nature of the O.Ps. and the interlocutory orders is common, the parties are referred to as appellants and respondents. The 1st appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, und...
Kyasa Narayana, S/O Veeraiah, Aged About Vs. the State of A.P., Rep. b ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Crl.Revision Case No.1103 of 2013 dated:05-7-2013 Kyasa Narayana, S/o Veeraiah, Aged about 81 years, Occ: Business, Proprietor of M/s Kyasa Narayana Rice and Oil Mill, Huzurabad.. Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the petitioner:Smt. V.Jayasree Counsel for the respondent:Public Prosecutor : : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Revision Case No.1103 of 2013 Judgment: The petitioner attacks the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. The District Collector, Karimnagar, ordered confiscation of 30% of the stock worth Rs.7,32,646/-, whereas the appellate court reduced the quantum of confiscation to 10%.2. Smt. V.Jayasree, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that there was no contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licen...
Uppari Bazari and 2 OThe Vs. E.Rangaswam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
THE HONOURABLE Sr.JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU SECOND APPEAL No.586 of 2013 dated:05-07-2013 Uppari Bazari & 2 others....Appellants E.Rangaswamy...Respondent Counsel for the Appellants: Sr.S.Venkateswara Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Sr.T.Koteswara Prasad : : ?.Cases referred: HONOURABLE Sr.JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU SECOND APPEAL No.586 of 2013 JUDGMENT : Unsuccessful defendants in both the Courts below are the appellants herein. The plaintiff/respondent filed the suit in the trial Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property consists of Ac.2-20 guntas in S.No.120/D and Ac.0-21 guntas in S.No.75/D/1 of R.Garlapadu, Itkyal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is owner and possessor of the plaint schedule lands. But the defendants plead that they have Rastha by way of cart track through the plaintiff's la...
The Chief Manager, M/S Icici Bank Ltd., Home Loan Wings Vs. Vikram Kot ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The petition is filed seeking condonation of delay of 212 days in filing the appeal on the premise that the petitioner has not received the order copy from the District Forum and the counsel for the petitioner applied for certificate copy and received it on 10.1.2013 and at the time the dealing officer Mr.Ramakrsihna of the petitioner company met with an accident. Thereafter, the file had transferred to a new Legal Manager and in that process the delay occasioned. 2. The respondent has resisted the petition denying the statement of the petitioner and contended that there is no supporting evidence for the explanation given by the petitioner and that in view of the judgement of the Honble National Commission in United India Insurance Co.Ltd., and Anr v. Mahesh Chandra Arya I (2013) CPJ 8A (NC) and Anshu Aggarwal v New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) each day to day delay has to be explained. 3. The point for c...
Shriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd., Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. M. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party is the appellant. The brief facts of the complaint as seen from the complaint are that on 24.08.2010 the respondent availed loan of Rs.4,90,000/- under hypothecation agreement from the appellant for purchase of the lorry bearing No.AP 16/TU 1445 under hypothecation Agreement. The total loan amount is Rs.7,32,507/- to be payable in 36 monthly instalments @ Rs.22,329/- commencing from 6.10.2010. The respondent has also availed loan of Rs.80,000/- for purchase of the tyres. Subsequently, due to expiry of his father, the respondent could not pay the instalments and promised the appellant that he would pay the installments after performing the obsequies. On 10.12.2011 the appellant repossessed the vehicle. The respondent requested time for payment of the due amount and the appellant without giving time and prior notice sold the vehicle in auction held on 29.3.2012. The respondent got issued notice dated 7.4.2012 for which t...
Kolluri Praveen Kumar Vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
Oral Order: (M. Shreesha, Member) 1) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant insured his BMW 520-d model car with the opposite party insurance company for a sum of Rs. 25,60,902/- for a period of one year commencing from 14.8.2011 to 13.8.2012 by paying premium of Rs. 45,926/- and a Private Car Package Policy was issued to the complainant. While the complainant was driving the vehicle it met with an accident on 15.8.2011 on the Outer Ring Road when the car hit the road divider while the complainant was trying to avoid heavy boulders. The complainant sustained injuries to his right and left leg ankle and the vehicle suffered severe damage and the complainant gave a complaint at Narasingi Police Station. The opposite parties were informed about the accident and they in turn appointed Mr. G. Bablu for assessing the loss. They appointed one Mr. Jubair for the purpose of investigation. The complainant submits that on the advice of the insurance surveyor, the veh...
The Ov Class Employees Association, Kandukur Rep.by Its President Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
Oral Order: (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/ J.Dr/Op.1 as against the orders dated 16.3.2012 in PP 23/2010 in CC 32/2007 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Prakasam at Ongole.. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under : 2. The brief facts of the case are as under : the complainant filed the above complaint to direct Ops 2 and 3 to execute and register plot no. 143 admeasuring Ac. 0.04 cents comprised in sy. No. 297/1 of Kandukur village and for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony so also for the costs of the litigation. In the complaint it is stated that the complainant was working as watchman in social welfare hospital, at cherukur of Parchur mandal. Previously he worked as such at social welfare hospital, cherukur , The Government of A. P. allotted 15 acres of land belonging to Skandapuri Janardhana Swamy temple in sy. No. 297/1 of kandukur village for the Govt. class IV EMPLOYEES...
Patan Saidani Vs. the Superintending Engineer/Operation Eastern Power ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The complainant has filed appeal contending that the District Forum returned her complaint on untenable grounds. She filed the complaint with the averments that her husband, a daily wage worker while sleeping in their hut on 3.05.2009 sustained fatal injuries as the hut got gutted as a result of short circuit. He was shifted in 108 ambulance to Jangareddigudem and from there to District Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru where he died on 6.10.2009 while undergoing treatment. The local official and the respondent inspected the spot after the occurrence of the incident and the Police, West Godavari registered a case in under Section 174 of IPC and the doctors at the hospital conducted post mortem examination over the body of the appellants husband. The appellant submitted that the respondents did not maintain the electrical supply lines in good and safe condition and she claimed an amount of Rs.1 lakh with interest thereon towards compensation ...
Mandapalu Ram Vs. Contdrathi Ramanarayana and 3 Ot
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.794 OF2012and batch dated:04-07-2013 Mandapalu Ramaiah..Petitioner Contdrathi Ramanarayana and 3 others..Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sr.T.Lakshminarayana Counsel for the Respondents: Sr.T.S.Anand : ?.CITATIONS: 1 2004 AIR SCW470: (2004) 2 SCC6012 (1983) 1 SCC183 (2001) 6 SCC534CRP No.794 of 2012 & 3288 of 2012 ORDER: CRP No.794 of 2012 has been preferred by the plaintiff in the suit challenging the correctness of the orders passed in IA No.1677 of 2010 by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal. IA No.1677 of 2010 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 840 days in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC (which is IA Sr No.6274 of 2010).The respondents 2, 3 and 4 in this revision filed those two applications. The 1st respondent herein was the sole defendant in the suit OS No.21 of 2004. Suit OS No.21 of 2004 was instituted on 2.9.2004 against ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »