Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRTI PETITION No.21934 OF201328-03-2014 M/s.L.G. Polymers India Private Limited.... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue (UC.III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.... RESPONDENTS Counsel for Petitioner:M/S. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for Respondents:GP FOR REVENUE GIST : HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred:1. 2011 (6) ALT3272. 2013 (6) ALD13. (2012) 4 SCC7184. (2013) 4 SCC280THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.21934 of 2013 The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner is a private limited company and the relief sought for is as under: "....this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the Memo of the 1st respondent in Memo.No.34909/UC.III (2)/2012-9, dated 22.05.2013 and direct the respondents to forbear from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land admeasuri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.4686 OF201428-03-2014 Stm. Sheela Bai....Petitioner. The State of A.P.and another......RESPONDENTS For the Appellant: M. Laxman Rao For the Respondents : Advocate General, G.P.for Home . : ?.CITATIONS: 1. 2012 (2) SCC3862.2011 (10) SCALE2243. (2011) 5 SCC2444.(1975) 3 SCC1985. 2012(2) SCC176THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.4686 of 2014 ORDER: The petitioner is the wife of the detenu and hence, challenges the Order of Preventive Detention, passed by the 2nd respondent on 24-09-2013, in this Writ Petition. It is stated that the detenu has been indulging in paddling prohibited intoxicants, such as sale of arrack and spurious and illicit liquor. It also appears that he is being prosecuted in Crime No.202 of 2011/12 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, which case was booked against him after the Task Force raided his premises and detected 70 illicit liquor sachets, each containing 100 mil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY SECOND APPEAL No.192 OF200528-03-2014 V.Nagamanemma & 2 Others...APPELLANTS V.Nagulu Naidu & Others....RESPONDENTS Counsel for Appellants: Sri P.V.Vidyasagar Counsel for Respondent: Sri M. Dorai Raj HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred:1. AIR1940Madras 236 2 AIR1972Guj 74 3 AIR1953Travancore-Cochin 336 4 1980 (2) ALT4365 AIR1996A.P. 24 6 (2010) 4 SCC1617 AIR1974CALCUTTA2838 AIR1993SC9579 AIR1961SC80810 AIR1960SC3351 AIR1940Madras 236 2 AIR1972Guj 74 3 AIR1953Travancore-Cochin 336 4 1980 (2) ALT4365 AIR1996A.P. 24 6 (2010) 4 SCC1617 AIR1974CALCUTTA2838 AIR1993SC9579 AIR1961SC80810 AIR1960SC335THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY SECOND APPEAL No.192 OF200528-03-2014 JUDGMENT:1. This second appeal is filed challenging the decree and judgment dated 22.11.2004 passed in A.S.No.132 of 1996 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati wherein and whereby the decree and judgment dated 16.08.2009 passed in O.S.No.320 of 1991 on the file o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
R. Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Member 1. The opposite party-insurance company is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum-II Visakhapatnam passed on 09-8-2013 in C.C.No.306 of 2012. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the son of the respondent during his lifetime obtained insurance policy bearing number 16579146 and the insurance policy was valid for a period of 10 years commencing from 15-3-2010. The respondents son died on 03-6-2010 and after the death of her son, the respondent submitted the claim along with necessary documents to the appellant-insurance company which repudiated the claim on 30-7-2011 on the ground that the respondents son suppressed the fact relating to his illness as to renal failure at the time of submission of proposal. 3. The appellant-insurance company was set exparte. 4. The respondent filed her affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A8. 5. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise of the appellants failure to i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
R. LakshmiNarasimha Rao, Member 1. The opposite party-S.B.I.insurance company is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum-I, East Godavari at Kakinada passed on 25-4-2013 in C.C.No.30 of 2012. 2. The brief facts of the case as seen from the complaint are that the respondents husband, late Satyanarayana, during his life time availed house loan from SBI APSP Branch, Kakinada for an amount of Rs.4,52,916/- and the bank authorities pressurized him to take SBI life insurance policy. The policy covers death benefit. He was issued policy bearing No.93000001610 and an amount of Rs.52,960/- was deducted towards the policy premium. 3. The respondent submitted that the insured died while the policy was in force and she made a claim to the appellant which repudiated the claim on the ground that the respondent suffered from hypertension dysipidemia and angina and he was under treatment prior to the date of the insurance policy. 4. The respondent submitted that h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.479 of 2007 28-03-2014 United India Insurance Company Limited Rep. by its Divisional Manager...Appellant Smt. V.Vijaya Laxmi and others .Respondents Counsel for the Appellant :Sri P.S.Manjula Kumar ^Counsel for respondents 1 to 6- Claimants : Sri T.S.Rayalu Counsel for respondent No.7- Claimant : None appeared HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred:1. (2012) 2 SCC3562. 2014(1) SCC2443. (2005) 6 SCC2364. 2009 ACJ12985. 2013(4)ALT35SC) HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.479 OF2007and Cross-Obj (SR)No.50729 of 2007 JUDGMENT: The 2nd respondent-Insurer(United India Insurance Company Limited), among two respondents including the owner of the lorry AP28 U9546(original registration KA390451) in M.V. O.P. No.757 of 2003 on the file of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-District Judge, Ranga Reddy, L.B.Nagar (for short, Tribunal) filed under Section 163A of the Act, by the claimants 6 in number viz., w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY WRIT APPEAL No.1150 OF2010 27-03-2014 The State of Andhra Pradesh,Rep., by its Secretary, Hyderabad and 4 others. ...Petitioners G.V.Mohan and 5 others..Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, Spl. Government Pleader Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: Sri S.R.Ashok senior counsel for K.Govardhan Reddy Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri M.Surender Rao, Standing counsel for HMDA Counsel for respondent No.5 : Sri Y.Madhusudhan Counsel for respondent No.6 : Sri Y.Rama Rao HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases cited:1. AIR1987SC2179(1987) 3 SCC7112 (2003) 8 SCC7403 (1999) 8 SCC6924 (2003) 4 SCC1615 (1999) 4 SCC4036 (2002) 5 SCC3377 (2008) 4 SCC6158 (1987) 2 SCC5559 AIR1966SC73510 (2010) 3 SCC470THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY WRIT APPEAL No.1150 OF2010 WRIT APPEAL No.1151 OF2010AND WRIT APPEAL No.30 OF2011COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per G. Rohini,J) The common order dated 8.10.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE G. ROHINI and THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY APPEAL SUIT No.220 OF201027-03-2014 Kurella Venkata Satyavathi...APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF Kanyamayini Devender Yadav...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT Counsel for Appellant: Sr.K.S.Murthy Counsel for Respondent: Smt.K.Udaya Sr. HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred: 1 (2004) 9 SCC4682 AIR1937PC1463 AIR1941PC934 AIR1951SC2805 2010 (3) ALD815THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE G.ROHINI AND THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY APPEAL SUIT No.220 OF2010JUDGMENT: (Per T. Sunil Chowdary, J.) This appeal, under section 96 C.P.C, is filed assailing the decree and judgment dated 29.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.169 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur, whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed dated 22.11.2006 in respect of the plaint 'A' schedule property was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred as they are arrayed before the trial Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Crl.Appeal No.195 of 2010 27-03-2014 Sontari Laxmana Rao Appellant-Accused State of A.P., rep. by its P.P.,High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant:Sri K. Satyanarayana Rao Counsel for respondent : Public Prosecutor HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases Referred : . HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2010 Dated:27. 03.2014 Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Honble Sri Justice M.S.K.Jaiswal) The accused in S.C.No.96 of 2009 on the file of the VIII-Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, is the appellant. Through its Judgment, dated 07-10-2009, the trial Court found him guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month. The same is challenged in this appeal.2. The facts...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE Sr.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.738 of 2014 27-03-2014 Shaik Subhani .Petitioner Sagamreddy Nagamani .Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.C.M.R.Velu Counsel for the respondent: -- HEAD NOTE: ?. CITATIONS: 2011 (5) ALT562The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against order dated 18.02.2014 in I.A.No.817 of 2013 in O.S.No.132 of 2011 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala. The respondent filed the above-mentioned suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,04,462/- on the foot of two promissory notes dated 09.09.2005 and 24.09.2005 against the petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement, wherein he has denied execution of the two promissory notes by specifically pleading that they were rank forgery. After framing of the issues, the respondent-plaintiff adduced her evidence and when the suit was posted for the evidence of the petitioner-defendant, he has filed the above-mentioned I.A.under Ord...
Tag this Judgment!