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.
Authorised Signatory, Sbi Life Insurance Co.Ltd., Central Processing C ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party no.3 is the appellant. The averments of the complaint are that Gojja Appa Rao, the husband of 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3 obtained housing loan of Rs.4,50,000/- on 16.6.2003 from the respondents no.4 and 5. The loan was repayable in equated monthly instalments of Rs.5,400/-. Appa Rao had also taken another loan from the respondents no.4 and 5 on 20.8.2010 with a loan limit ofRs.12,00,000/-. The 4th respondent on 24.9.2010 released a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- and issued DD for a sum of Rs.78,764/- towards SBI life insurance. The 4th respondent released Rs.2,00,000/- on 24.12.2010 and Rs.2,50,000/- on 4.1.2011 in total Rs.10,08,764/- out of sanctioned limit of Rs.12,00,000/-. Before commencing repayment of 2nd loan amount, Appa Rao died on 28.3.2011. The 4th respondent collected a sum of Rs.4,028/- on 6.6.2011 towards insurance premium even after intimation from the 2nd respondent about the death of Appa R...
The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Armoor ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President Aggrieved by the order of C.C.No.24/2011 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 is the mother of the insured Sri Madhu Reddy who took an insurance policy valid from 28-5-1999 for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with accidental benefits. While so, on 21-3-2010 the insured died in a motor vehicle accident and the complainant made a claim with the opposite party and the opposite party paid an amount of Rs.57,982/- through cheque under the policy after some deductions but denied the accidental benefits on the ground that the insured was driving the said motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 28-4-2011 which was replied by the opposite party that their repudiation is justified. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay the accident benefit amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with int...
Ch. Kishore Kumar and Another Vs. Yellisetty Lakshmi and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
Smt .M. Shreesha, Incharge President Aggrieved by the order of C.C.No.36/2011 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam, the opposite parties preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased one house plot from second opposite party which is a real estate firm through opposite party No.1, who is the agent by paying an admission fee of Rs.100/- and first instalment fee of Rs.300/- in the month of June, 2004. The complainant entered into an agreement of sale dated 7-8-2007 for the subject plot with second opposite party on 07-8-2007 and paid totally 61 instalments, but opposite party no.1 issued only 58 receipts and inspite of several requests, balance 3 receipts were not issued in favour of the complainant. Finally the complainant approached the second opposite party for registration in September and October, 2010 but was denied the registration on the ground that she did not pay balance three instalments. The complainant further subm...
Veenus and S.V. Projects and Others Vs. A. Saida Reddy and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President These appeals are disposed of by a common order, since the facts are similar in all these C.Cs. F.A.No.731/2012: Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.750/2011 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, the OPs preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of plot No.116 measuring 270.39 sq. yds. in Sy No.74 Gopanapalle Village, Serilingampally Mandal and the opposite parties approached the complainant for developing his plot submitting that the neighbouring owners also were offering their respective plots for development. Induced by such an offer, the complainant accepted the proposal and entered into a development agreement-cum-GPA on 14-3-2008 with the opposite parties. Opposite parties paid Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant towards interest free refundable security deposit amount which is to be refunded to the opposite parties at the time of handing over possession of the flats to the complainan...
Aviva Life Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep. by Its Authorized Person and Anothe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1.The opposite parties are the appellants. The averments of the complaint are that the respondent took a policy bearing No.SCG2230417 from the appellant for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. She paid first quarterly premium of Rs.7,500/- on 12.11.2008 and next premium on 13.2.2009. Lakshmi Kantham the mother of the respondent died on 19.3.2009 due to heart attack. The respondent, who is the nominee under that policy had intimated to the appellant. The respondent had sent a letter dated 25.11.2009 to the appellant asking them to issue claim forms for settlement of policy. The respondent got notice issued on 24.2.2011 to the appellants. 2. The appellants resisted the case contending that they received the claim intimation on 12.8.2009 and life assured died on 19.3.2009. On the same day the appellants sent letter to the respondent asking him to provide requisite documents. The investigator submitted report along with medical record and doctors certificat...
Nayeneni Surya Rao and Anoth Vs. the District Collector, Ranga Reddy D ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.14622 of 2013 DT.22-07-2013 Nayeneni Surya Rao and another ...Petitioners The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others..Respondents Counsel for the PetitioneRs.Sr.V.Ravinder Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Home Head note: ?.Cases referred: THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.14622 of 2013 The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed with two-fold relief, namely, (1) to invalidate the action of the respondents in seizing four bore wells of the petitioners and (2) to quash FIR No.297/2013, dated 04.04.2013, on the file of respondent No.3. As regards the fiRs.part of the relief, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the directions given by this Court his clients have filed an appeal before respondent No.1 and that the said appeal was dismissed by her by order, dated 17.06.2...
Sri Jaichand T.Gangwal Vs. M/S.Sriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., and Othe
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.149 of 2011 dated:19-07-2013 Sr.Jaichand T.Gangwal ...PETITIONER M/s.Sriram Chits PVT.Ltd., and others....RESPONDENTS COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:- Smt.Ch.Vijaya Lakshmi COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.1:- Sr.K.Maheswara Rao : ?.CITATIONS: THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.149 of 2011 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.906 of 2000 in the Court of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against respondents 1 to 4 and the petitioner herein for recovery of amount covered by a chit transaction. While the 2nd respondent is the prized subscriber, the petitioner (4th defendant) and respondents 3 to 5 are sureties. The suit was decreed on 06.08.2002. After the decree became final, the 1st respondent initially filed E.P.No.131 of 2002, which is said to have been dismissed for default after the judgment debtors entered appearance and filed counter. Thereafter, the 1st respondent file...
Y.Prabhakara Ra Vs. 1.P.S. Anil Kumar and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2743 OF2013dated:19-07-2013 Y.Prabhakara Rao.....Petitioner 1.P.S.Anil Kumar and others....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner:Sr.T. Narayana Counsel for the respondent : -- : Cases referred : 1 2006 (5) ALD3282 2008 (1) ALD2683 (2011) 11 SCC275THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2743 OF2013ORDER: The revision petitioner is the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.295 of 2005 on the file of the Court of XVII-Addl. Chief Judge-cum-III Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The respondent No.2 herein is the plaintiff who filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and recovery of possession. The plaintiff is claiming title to the suit property through defendant No.3 and the defendant No.3 in his written statement did not dispute the same. In fact, he supported the case of the plaintiff and as such no issue is settled against the defendant No.3. It appears that the defendan...
N.Hanmanth R Vs. 1.Smt.Razia Begum and Other
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO C.R.P.Nos.1926 of 2013 and batch dated:19-07-2013 N.Hanmanth Reddy..Petitioner. 1.Smt.Razia Begum and others.....Respondents. Senior Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D.Prakash Reddy, appearing for Sri Venkata Rao Patil, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondents: Sri Ashok Anand Kumar HEAD NOTE: ?. Cases referred 1 1998 (7) S.C.C. 123 2 AIR2002Supreme Court 2370 3 2007(9) S.C.C. 466 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1926 and 1927 of 2013 COMMON ORDER : Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, Senior Counsel representing Sri Venkata Rao Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Ananda Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.2. These Revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the separate orders dt.13-03-2013 in I.A.No.151 of 2008 (new) (old I.A.No.102 of 2006) in O.S.No.36 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, and in I.A.No.67 of 2013 in the same suit.3...
AkbaruddIn Owais Vs. the Govt. of A.P. Rep., by Its Principal
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.824 of 2013 Dated:19-07-2013 Akbaruddin Owaisi.... Petitioner The Govt. of A.P. rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and nine others... Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Md. Ismail and Sri Jangoji, Learned Counsel represented by S. Niranjan Reddy Counsel for respondents1 to 6: GP. For Home; Sri N. Ramachandra Rao, Learned Senior Counsel; Sri C. Subba Rao, Sri S. Sriram and Sri N. Harinath, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents. HEAD NOTE: ?. Citations:1. (2001) 6 SCC1812) (2010) 12 SCC2543) AIR (32) 1945 PC184) (2013) Cri.L.J.776 (SC) 5) (2002) 9 SCC147 AIR2002SC19496) 1992 Supp (1) SCC3357) AIR1994SC288) (2012) 7 SCC4079) AIR1955SC19610) (1985) 1 SCC31711) (1970) 1 SCC65312) 1982 Cri.L.J1557(Kerala HC FB) 13) 1976 Cri.L.J1825(All HC-Lucknow Bench) 14) AIR1968SC11715) 2004 Cri.L.J.1697 (Gauhati HC) 16) 2003 Cri.LJ2976(Patna HC) 17) AIR1962CALC...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »