Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Kandikonda Paramd Vs. Basha Mohiu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2163 of 2014 07-08-2013 Kandikonda Paramdamam Petitioner Basha Mohiuddin Respondent ^Counsel for the Petitioner: Sr.T.Koteshwar Prasad !Counsel for the respondent: ---- Gist: Head note: ?.Cases referred: THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2163 of 2014 Dated 07th August, 2014 The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against order, dated 25.02.2014, in I.A.No.166 of 2014 in O.S.No.103 of 2012, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner, who is the defendant, has filed I.A.No.166 of 2014 for re-calling PW.2 for further cross-examination. The said application was allowed by the lower Court on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. However, a very unreasonable condition was imposed by the lower Court to pay the said amount on that day itself. The lower Court has dismissed I.A.No.166 of 2014 on the same da...
M/S. Rak Ceramics (India) Private Limite Vs. the Assistant Commissione ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2013
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.No.31 of 2013 and batch 06-08-2013 M/s. RAK Ceramics (India) Private Limited, Rep. by its Finance Controller, Mr. Om Prakash, ADB Road, Samalkot 533440 East Godavari District and others. ........ Petitioners The Assistant Commissioner (CT)-VI,Enforcement Wing, O/o the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,Nampally, Hyderabad. ..... Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri N. Venkataraman, Senior Counsel, for Sri S. Dwarakanath Counsel for the respondent: Sri P. Balaji Varma, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax : ?Cases Referred:1. 2012(11) SCC 22.2. (2011) 40 VST 8.(AP) 3. (2007) 2 SCC 230.4. (2004) 266 ITR 1 (SC) = (2004) 9 SCC 68.5. (2004) 11 SCC 62.6. (1983) 2 SCC 235.7. AIR 200.SC 421.8. (2003) 2 SCC 45.9. (2004) 7 SCC 59.10. (2004) 11 SCC 62.11. (1992) Supp 1 SCC 32.12. AIR 196.SC 167.13. (2010) 5 SCC 62.W.P.Nos.31, 6260, 6261, 8214, 9247, 9257, 9273, 11117, 13857, 16178 and 17093 of 2013...
M/S Orange Private Limited Rep. by Is Managing Director A-4 Unit, Indu ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The respondent purchased Chevrolet Avro Car on 26.08.2006 which was assigned with registration number AP 31AS7 The appellant is the authorized dealer of the manufacturer of the car. The respondent complained of frequent engine repairs. The respondent submitted that he incurred an amount of Rs.5,492/- per visit and a total amount of Rs.1,42,810/- and that the vehicle was taken for 27 times for free service and for repairs for 9 times. The respondent complained of problems relating to low pick up of the vehicle , air conditioner and engine of the car besides that the car broke for several times. 2. The respondent submitted that he incurred an amount of Rs.5,774/- on 19.9.2008, a sum of Rs.22,709/- on 23.05.2009, an amount of Rs.30,273/- on 2.3.2010 for repairs of the car. 3. The appellant resisted the claim on the premise that the car in question underwent extensive usage and was in regular use by the respondent. The problem that arose was...
The Thasildar Gara Mandal Srikakulam District Vs. Pappu Polisu and Ano ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party has filed appeal inter alia contending that the first respondent having filed appeal against the order of the Public Information Officer and having suffered adverse order instead of filing second appeal under RTI Act, has filed complaint before the District Forum which ought not to have admitted the complaint and passed the order overriding the provisions of the RTI Act. It is contended that the District Forum did not return any finding on the question of jurisdiction and the District Forum passed the order directing the appellant to provide information which is not available with the appellant. It is contended that the A.P. Information Commission passed order in Appeal No. 3345/CIC/2009 dated 19.10.2009 that any information sought for in the form of questions which cannot be furnished as such justification or mater within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot be properly classified as information. 2. The f...
Peeti Real Estates (P) Ltd., Rep. by Sri Sanjay Parasrmka and Others V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite parties are appellants. The first appellant is a company and the appellants no.2 and 3 are its directors. The respondent filed complaint claiming refund of Rs.7,27,00/-towards sale consideration of Flat No.511 with interest and to handover possession letters , for a direction to the appellants for construction of two pent houses and to pay an amount of Rs.3 lakh towards compensation. 2. The respondent along with his sister, Venkata Ramana Kumari and her husband Venkata Babji are owners of 5082.4 sq. yards of site at Chinagadili Village and they entered into Development Agreement with the appellants on 5.06.2002 and another agreement on 2.01.2006 which was entered into between the appellants and the respondents sister. In terms of the Development Agreement, it was agreed that the appellant would construct on the site two multi- storied building complex, HILL VIEW RESIDENCY in two blocks, Block-A with 60 residential flats and...
M/S. Kedia Infotech Ltd. Vs. Sanapala Venkata Ramana Murthy
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party had filed appeal inter alia contending that the respondent is a franchisee of the appellant-company and they entered into agreement for business for commercial purpose and as such the respondent is not a consumer. It is contended that it was agreed by the appellant-company to pay commission to the respondent on the transactions and that jurisdiction of courts is restricted to Hyderabad and the respondent has been doing various other businesses which the District Forum has not considered while rendering the Judgment. 2. The case of the respondent is that he deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- and entered into agreement with the appellant on 1.09.2006 and the appellant-company assured the respondent that it would send its representatives along with e-trans plus cards worth of Rs.46,500/-and assured the respondent that the appellant would render marketing support to him for a period of 2 months and provide online software ...
The Chief Post Master General, Ap Circle and Another Vs. Smt. Sabera B ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2013
Oral Order: (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful opposite parties as against the orders dated 03.09.2011 in CC 1089 of2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum II, Hyderabad . For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under : 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant booked 6 registered letters on 31-08-2010 with acknowledgement due addressed to The President of India, Governor, Chief Minister, Principle Secretary of Home, Andhra Pradesh and National Human Rights Commission, appealing them to release the complainants husband from jail. After that the complainant had not received the acknowledgement cards s ofar, despite complaints to the opposite parties. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 12-10-2010. Probably the opposite parties might have detained the above registered postal letters at the GPO under some influences and not delivered to the above di...
M/S. Happy Home Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Chairman and Mana ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2013
Oral Order: (S. Bhujanga Rao, Member) This appeal is directed against docket order dt.10.6.2013 in E.A.No.63/2011 in C.C.No.261/2010, on the file of Dist. Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad. The complainant filed C.C.No.261/2010 before the Dist. Consumer ForumIII, Hyderabad, seeking direction to the opposite party, to demarcate his plot, complete the development and deliver physical possession after obtaining the layout permission from the competent authority or in alternative refund an amount of Rs.2 lakhs together with interest @ 24 % p.a. from 12.1.2004, till the date of realization and also Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. collected towards registration charges, together with compensation and costs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, stating that the complainant failed to show that the complaint filed by him is within the period of limitation of two years as envisaged under Sec. 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Aggrieved by the dismissal order of the District Foru...
Mrs. C. Sita Prasad and Another Vs. M/S. Lodha Healthy Construction an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2013
Oral Order: (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. The complainants who are the wife and husband respectively have filed this complaint against the opposite party Construction and Developers Private Limited U/s. 17(1) (a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking the following reliefs: (i) To declare that the opposite party has used unfair trade practices and committed deficiency in service towards the complainants and that opposite party is liable to compensate complainants for the delay in delivery of the apartment at 18% on the amounts paid by the complainants, direct the opposite parties to compensate the complainants Rs.19,87,951/- for the delay in delivery of the complainants apartment for the period from 01.07.2011 to 31.12.2011, to compensate the complainants Rs.26,55,880/- for the delay in delivery of the complainants apartment for the period from 01.01.2012 to the date of complaint ie 20.08.2012, interest @ 18% PA from the date of complaint till delivery of possession of apartment...
Hi-design Plyam Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Rep. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2013
Oral Order: (M. Shreesha, Member) 1) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is carrying on wholesale and retail business in laminates, plywood etc. and kept the stock in the godown at premises No. 14-1-365, New Aghapura, Hyderabad and obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for the period from 21.4.2010 to 20.4.2011 for the sum assured of Rs. 25 lakhs. While so, in the month of September, and October, 2010 there were heavy rains in twin cities due to which the said godown was inundated with water up to a height of 2 feet and the entire material was damaged. On 11.10.2010 the complainant informed the opposite party insurance company about the damage caused and addressed letters dt. 10.11.2010 and dt. 17.12.2010 to the surveyor submitting the list of damaged stocks along with a copy of report of Indian Meteorological Department (IMD). 2) The complainant submits that he also sent quotations of M/s. Vijaya Laminates, M/s. A.S. Laminates and M/s. Sud...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »