Andhra Pradesh Court August 2013 Judgments
Lebaka Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, S/O. Late Y Vs. Ambavaram Narayanamma, W/ ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.891 of 2011 Dated:18-04-2013 Lebaka Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late Yella Reddy, aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.1/299, Maruthi Naagar, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.... PETITIONER Ambavaram Narayanamma, W/o. Late Lakshumaiah, aged about 75 years, Occ: Household affairs, R/o. Patha Kadapa Village, Kadapa, Kadapa District and others....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S.V. MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. R. PRASAD - R20 TO R25 MR. V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY - R9 TO R13 MR. V.R. REDDY KOVVURI - R28 & R29 HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred 1. 2012 AIR SCW42482. AIR1973SC5693. AIR2003SC2674. 2011 (4) ALD43(SC) 5. 2013 (30 ALD7156. (2013) 5 SCC3977. (2007) 10 SCC719The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is preferred by the proposed party, who sought impleadment in a suit, being O.S.No.38 of 2006, for partition, as defendant No.24 vide I.A.No.1161 of 2010, which was rejected by the Co...
Tag this Judgment!N. Malla Reddy Vs. State of A.P. Rep., by Its Secretary, Re
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.17358 of 2013 Dated30-08-2013 N. Malla Reddy ...Petitioner State of A.P.rep., by its Secretary, Revenue Proh. and Excise and four others...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sr.K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel for Sr.V. Ramachander Goud Counsel for respondents: Government Pleader for Proh. and Excise HEAD NOTE: ?.Citations: 1) 1998(1) ALD16(DB) 2) 2005(4) ALT3053) (1983) 4 SCC3534) (1989) 1 SCC1015) (1990) 4 SCC2076) (1998) 1 SCC2197) AIR1987SC5378) (1982) 1 SCC561= AIR1982SC9499) (1871) 6 Ch.App.875 10) (2009) 9 SCC2411) 1984(2) APLJ page 1 (FB) 12) AIR1979SC102913) AIR2001SC198014) (2001) 5 SCC40715) (2001).SCC67616) (2001) 8 SCC54017) AIR2001SC88618) AIR1992SC184619) 2004(8) SCC57920) AIR1935PC7921) AIR1959SC14922) AIR1965SC140523) AIR1968SC93324) 1992 Supp(1) SCC525) (2001) 5 SCC62926) (2004) 8 SCC22927) (2011) 14 SCC77028) 1988 Supp SCC5529) AIR1965SC99530) 2007 (9) SCC15831) [1940].AC1014THE HON'BLE Sr.JU...
Tag this Judgment!irugurala Laxmi and Others Vs. M/S. Shakti Farm Machinery and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
Oral Order: (M. Shreesha, Member) 1) All the above applications are disposed of by this common order and CCIA No. 273/2013 in CC No. 109/2012 is taken as lead case. 2) This is an application filed by the complainant u/s 151 of C.P.C. praying to direct the respondents/opposite parties to cause production of Product Concern Reports of the harvester of the complainant from the date of purchase till the date of filing the complaint on the ground that the harvester purchased by her on 3.2.2010 through Op1 manufactured by Op2 by paying an amount of Rs. 21,75,000/- had suffered inherent manufacturing defects relating to engine, gear box, crawler etc. The petitioner/complainant submits that the engine was repaired on 1.5.2011 and the crawler was replaced on seven occasions. She further contended that assemble transmission was repaired and replaced nearly on eight occasions. The opposite parties modified and replaced the parts four times. She submits that as on the date of filing of the complai...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. D. Parvathi Vs. Smt. S.V. Nageswari
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The transfer application is filed by the first opposite party seeking transfer of the complaint, C.C.No. 68103 of 2008 from the District Forum Srikakulam on the premise that the complainant has acquaintance with the Presiding Officer of the District Forum and she had changed her advocate to engage another advocate who is the native of the village and distant relation of Presiding Officer of the District Forum. 2. The respondent has contended that the revision petition is misconceived and there are no grounds to transfer the complaint from the District Forum, Srikakulam. 3. The apprehension of the opposite party is that the complainant has acquaintance with the Presiding Officer of the District Forum and she had changed her advocate to engage another advocate who is the native of the village and distant relation of Presiding Officer of the District Forum and the adjudication of the matter may not suit the requirement of the principles of ...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educat Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 27777 OF 201.and batch 20-08-2013 Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational Society (Regn No.662/1996) Plot No.102,High Court Colony, Vanasthalipuram,Hyderabad Rep. by its Secretary Rev. KVK Rao and others......... Petitioners The State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, Hyderabad...... Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P. Sri Raghuram Counsel for respondent No.1: G.P. for Higher Education Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri C. Sudesh Anand (SC for APSCHE) : ?Cases Referred:1. (2005) 6 SCC 53.2. 2008 (3) ALD 10.(DB) 3. AIR 195.SC 11.4. (2001) 2 SCC 38.5. (2013) 3 SCC 38.6. (2002) 8 SCC 48.7. (2009) 7 SCC 75.8. (1992) 1 SCC 55.9. (2012) 4 SCC 65.WRIT PETITION No. 27777, 27898, 27918, 28014, 28023, 28055, 28060, 28073, 28098, 28108, 28116, 28125, 28130, 28134, 28139, 28206, 28249, 28260, 28321, 28356, 28399, 28404, ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr.J. Radha Consultant, Gyn. and Obs. Apollo Multi Speciality Hospital ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
M. Shreesha, Incharge President Aggrieved by the order of C.C.No.6/2011 on the file of District Forum-II, Tirupathi , Opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant approached the opposite party on third week of April, 2008 for Termination of pregnancy and tubectomy operation for which the opposite party advised her to come on 27-4-2008 and she paid Rs.5000/- and got all the necessary tests done. The complainant submits that on 27-4-2008 her pregnancy was terminated and tubectomy operation was done by giving spinal anaesthesia. The complainant submits that after 7.00 pm on 24-7-02008 she became mentally imbalanced because of spinal anaesthesia and she was shifted to SVIMS by the opposite party and an amount of Rs.6000/- was paid there. Thereafter the complainants husband took the patient to Apollo hospital, Chennai where she was diagnosed to be having Cerebral Venous Thrombosis. She stayed there till 15-5-2008 and spent an amo...
Tag this Judgment!Kyatham Ramadevi Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Peddapally Br ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President Aggrieved by the order of C.C.No.122/2010 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, the preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the wife and nominee of late K.Satyanarayana who took six polices as a package from opposite party No.1 through salary deduction scheme, the details of which are as follows:Sl. No.Policy NumberSum Assured1.6849800771,00,000-002.6849800781,00,000-003.6849800791,00,000-004.6849800801,00,000-005.6849800811,00,000-006.6849800821,00,000-00The life assured died on 19-3-2008 and the complainant submitted all the necessary documents but after a lapse of one year, opposite party 2 issued a letter dated 31-3-2009 repudiating her claim on the ground that the insured was suffering from lung cancer before obtaining the policy. Denying this, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 10-6-2010 for which opposite party 2 sent a reply on 15-6-2010 but thereafter there was no respons...
Tag this Judgment!Chekuri Chaitanya Krishna Chowdary Vs. Narendra Varma, Local Cable Ope ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
Oral Order: (S. Bhujanga Rao, Member) The complainant filed the above appeal against the order dt.31.1.2013 of the District Forum, Guntur where under the Consumer Complaint filed by the appellant/complainant was partly allowed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows: The complainant has taken a new Siti Cable connection on 13.8.2012 from the office of the opposite party no.1, the local cable operator. On the same day, the persons from the office of opposite party no.1 came to his house and given new Siti Cable Connection and collected Rs.250/- (Rs.200/- towards one month security deposit or advance and Rs.50/- for installation charges). At that time, the complainant asked the persons from the office of the opposite party no.1, to give original tax invoice (bill) to him and they said that they would give the bill afterwards and send the same to him through the collect...
Tag this Judgment!The A.P. Co-operative Housing Societies Federation Ltd. Baghlingampall ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
Oral Order: (M. Shreesha, Member) 1) Aggrieved by the order in CC No. 188/2002 on the file of the Dist. Forum, Ananthapur, the opposite party preferred this appeal and along with it the above application to condone delay of 95 days in filing the appeal on the ground that the copy of the order in C.C. No. 188/2002 passed on 28.3.2013 has not been received by the petitioner/appellant and it came to know about the disposal of the matter only on 10.7.2013. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but delay is only due to non-receipt of copy of the order. The petitioner/appellant counsel advised to prefer the appeal as there are good chances of succeeding the matter and therefore prayed that the delay may be condoned. 2) In the light of the fact that delay was 95 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 her plea. The provisions of Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Samala Janga Reddy Vs. the Chief Manager, City Bank and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.881/2011 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad , the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant has a credit card issued by the opposite party bank 3 years ago with a credit limit of Rs.1,13,000/- against which the OP sanctioned the personal loan of Rs. 3 lakhs which had to be repaid in 24 monthly instalments with interest at Rs.16,162/- per month. The complainant submits that he cleared the personal loan account in November, 2010 and has utilized the entire credit limit of Rs.1,13,000/- in October, 2009 but due to financial constraints could not clear the outstanding credit limit of his card. Thereafter the complainant was asked by the bank to pay Rs.23,000/- initially and the balance in 24 monthly instalments. The complainant was paying the EMIs without any default but thereafter noticed that there were some illegal transactions made by some unknown ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »