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.
Amruthlal SardA... Rev Vs. Smt. Mangi Bai Kasat and Other
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
THE HONOURABLE Sr.JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.201 of 2011 Dated 10-07-2013 Amruthlal Sarda..Revision Petitioner Smt. Mangi Bai Kasat and others..Respondents Counsel for Revision Petitioner: Sr.Dinish Kumar Gilda Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sr.Bankatlal Mandani HEAD NOTE: ?.CITATIONS: HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.201 of 2011 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.507 of 2008 in the Court of X Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court).City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 6, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner opposed the suit by filing a written statement. One of the contentions raised by him was that their mother Janaki Bai Sarda executed a Will, marked as Ex.B3, bequeathing her property in a particular manner and that the same would have its own impact upon the partition of the properties. To prove that document, the petitioner examined o...
1.Palkondavijaya Mohan Reddy S/Ovenkat Vs. 1.Md.Asadullah,tahsildar, D ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.11139 of 2009 dated:10-07-2013 1.Palkonda Vijaya Mohan Reddy S/o Venkatram Reddy Aged about 50 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o Mahabubnagar.... Petitioner 1.Md.Asadullah,Tahsildar, Devarakadra Mandal,Mahabubnagar District and another ... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor : ?.Cases referred:1. AIR1992SC6042. (2002) 3 SCC893. (2011) 10 SCC7054. 2010 (1) ALD3255. (2009) 16 SCC6056. (2001) 9 SCC6187. (2012) 9 SCC734THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.11139 of 2009 ORDER:1. Initiation of prosecution against the petitioner under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (for short ".the Act".) is the subject matter of challenge in the present application, which is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ".Cr.P.C.".).2. The allegations i...
Chirrboinakrish Vs. 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.11371 OF2013dated:10-07-2013 Chirrboina Krishna... Petitioner 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad 2. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner:Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu and Sri N. Bharat Babu. Counsel for respondents :Advocate General. : ?.Cases referred:1. (1988) 1 SCC287 1988 SCC (Cri) 107 (2) 2 (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1 3 1992 SCC Supl.(1) 496 4 2012(7) SCC5335 1990(1)SCC3286 (1998) 8 SCC402HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.11371 OF2013ORDER:- (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the order of preventive detention passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings S.B.(I).No.26/PD-DG/S-1/2013 dated 22.3.2013 and its...
Reliabilityengineering Industries and a Vs. Aesseal India Privatelimit ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE S.V.BHATT, C.M.A.Nos.323 of 2013 and batch dated:10-07-2013 Reliability Engineering Industries and another ...APPELLANTS Aesseal India Private Limited and others ...RESPONDENTS COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS :Sri.S.Ravi in cma.323 and 352 of 2013 COUNSEL FOR THE APPPELLANTS:sRI.D.Prakash Reddy in cma 355 of 2013 COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS:sRI.S.Niranjan Reddy : ?.CITATIONS: 130(2006) DLT330COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sr.Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) These three miscellaneous appeals filed under Rule 1 of Order 43 C.P.C.arise out of a common order, dated 08.04.2013, passed in three interlocutory applications filed in O.S.No.73 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. The 2nd plaintiff-AES Engineering Limited, Global Technology Centre is a Company, i...
Hanuman Joshi and Others Vs. M/S Omega Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
M. Shreesha, Incharge President These complaints are being disposed of by a common order, since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these complaints, and against the same opposite parties, we are of the opinion that they can be disposed of by a common order. C.C.No.80 of 2011 1. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant entered into an agreement of sale and a construction agreement on 16-8-2007 with Opposite parties 1 to 6 for plot No.248 admeasuring 218 sq. yds. and bungalow admeasuring 2,300 sq. ft. for a sale consideration of Rs.25,50,000/- for the land and Rs.34,50,000/- at the rate of Rs.1500/- per sft. for the construction, which as per the terms of the agreement was to be completed within 21 months from the date of agreement. Opposite party No.1 is the developer and O.Ps. 2 to 6 are the land owners and O.P. 7 is the bank with which O.P.1 had a tie up arrangement for providing finance. The complainant submits that O.P.1 arranged for lo...
The General Manager, Pepsi Company Limited Vs. R. Madhu Goud and Anoth ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
M. Shreesha, Incharge President Aggrieved by the order of C.C.No.32/2013 on the file of District Forum, Medak at Sangareddy, OP2 preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant on 21-6-2012 purchased six Mirinda cool drink bottles with batch No.LB193, dated 05-5-2012 at Rs.10/- each from opposite party No.1 and found an empty sachet of RMD Manichanda Gutkha packet at the bottom of 200 ml cool drink bottle and the complainant approached O.P.1, he did not take up any responsibility but shifted the responsibility to OP 2, who is the manufacturer of this soft drink. The complainant got issued a legal notice to both O.Ps. on 28-6-2012 but did not receive proper response. Hence he approached the Forum seeking directions to the O.Ps. to refund the cost of the bottle with interest, compensation and costs. O.P.1 was set exparte. O.P.2 submitted that there is no deficiency in service and that all the soft drinks are manufactured in sophisticated plants...
P.V. Prasada Rao Vs. Smt. G. Srikantha
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
Oral Order: (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy in CC.No.212/2008 dated 19.7.2012. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under: 2.The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party on 25.3.2007 to purchase flat No.101 in P.R.Villa situated at Alwal, Secunderabad which was constructed by the opposite party (Builder). As per the agreement dt.25.3.2007 the total sale consideration of the flat No.101 is Rs.22,44,000/- and the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party as advance on 25.3.2007 and thereafter she has paid Rs.5,90,000/- to the opposite party on 2.4.2007 and 28.4.2007 and in all the complainant has paid Rs.6,00,000/- towards advance amount and she has to pay the balance of Rs.16,44,000/- as on 2.4.2007. After paying Rs.6,00,000/- to the opposite party...
P.Veeraswamyand Other Vs. Panguru Seethammagariarya Vysyadharma S
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT A.S.Nos.421 of 1992 and batch dated:09-07-2013 P.Veeraswamy and others ....APPELLANTS Panguru SeethammagariArya Vysya Dharma Sathram...RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS:Sri.V.L.N.G.K.Murthy FOR THE RESPONDENT :sRI.k.s.gOPALA kRISHNAN : ?.CITATIONS: COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J) Both the appeals are between the same parties. They arise from the decrees in O.S.Nos.132 of 1986 and 102 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in O.S.No.132 of 1986. The factual background, in brief, is as under: One Sri Kuppu Ramaswami Chetty succeeded to or acquired a fairly vast extent of movable and immovable property. That included a house situated at New Street, Tirupati and about Acs.40.00 of land in Survey Nos.296 and 302 of a Village niehgbouring Tirupati, Chittoor District. His first...
A.Ganapa Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No.17187 of 2013 dated:09-07-2013 A.Ganapathy...Petitioner Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (RD-III) Dept., Hyderabad & Ors...Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Sr.K.S.MURTHY COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: GOVT. PLEADER FOR REVENUE (Telangana Area) : ?.CITATIONS: 1) AIR1995SC705THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No.17187 of 2013 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the respondent authorities, in making a blanket declaration that a distance of 250 metres shall be maintained from the alleged public drinking water source to the point where the petitioner proposed to dig a borewell and in rejecting the application of the petitioner, as illegal and unconstitutional. A consequential relief is sought to direct the respondents not to interfere with the activities of the petitioner in digging a borewell a...
The National Insurance Company Limited Rep. by Its Divisional Manager ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party no.2 is the appellant. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Forum whereby the opposite party no.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,,000 together with interest and costs. 2. The first respondent is the wife and respondent no. 5 and 6 are the parents and the respondent nos. 2 to 4 are the children of Appa Rao who during his life time obtained insurance policy bearing number 100300/47/01/960022/02/96/30440for the period from 31.03.203 to 30.03.2013. The insured while proceeding on his motor cycle bearing number AP 31K 7557 met with an accident when a van bearing registration number AP 31 U 0209 came in opposite direction at high speed and dashed to the motor cycle as a result of which he sustained injuries and died on 27.07.2007. The respondent no.1 to 6 lodged claim with the appellant-insurance company and as the claim was not settled, they filed the complaint. 3. The seventh respondent resisted the claim...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »