Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on : Dec-30-2013
Oral Order: (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) 1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties 1 and 2 as against the order in C.C. No. 56/2010 on the file of Dist. Forum II, Krishna Vijayawada. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant No. 1 a heart patient (hereinafter called as patient) has been referred to by Op1 to Op2 with a history of Pace Maker Syndrome (Syncope) as he had earlier undergone pacemaker implantation at Op1 hospital. On 12.8.2008 he was admitted to Op2 hospital. On 18.8.2008 after necessary investigations Op.3 performed operation to implant a new pacemaker by removing the existing pacemaker on the patient for which Op5 paid Rs. 80,000/-. The patient was kept in the same hospital as in-patient as advised by Op3 doctor for better management of the patient and to monitor post-operative complications if any. While the things thus stood, the patient had been experienc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-27-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO C.R.P.No.5180 of 2013 27-12-2013 Dr.Srinivasa Rao Kothapalli and others.....Petitioners Dr.Appa Rao Mukkamala and others......Respondents Senior Counsel for the petitioners:Sri Vedula Venkataramana, for M/s.Bharadwaj Associates. ^Senior Counsel for RR1, 3 and 4 to 11: Sri D.V.Sitarama Murthy for Sri C.S.Surya Prakash Rao Senior Counsel for the R-2 : Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy for Sri K.Jyothi Prasad Counsel for the R-10 : Sri N.V.Ramanujam HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred 1 AIR1968S.C. 1513 2 AIR1962S.C. 1172 3 Hyderabad Karnataka Education society v.Registrar of Societies .. 2000 (1) SCC566para 28 4 2011 (13) SCC774THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO C.R.P.No.5180 of 2013 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.10-12-2013 in I.A.No.2310 of 2013 in S.O.P.No.176 of 2006.2. M/s.N.R.I. Academy of Sciences (for short 'the Society') is a Society, registered under the provisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-12-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL L.P.A.No.82 of 1992 12-11-2013 Abdul Jaleel (died) and others .Appellants Col. Denyl Winston Ferries and others.Respondens Counsel for appellants : Sr.Mirza Safiulla Baig Counsel for 1st respondent : Sr.Jagan Mohan Reddy HEAD NOTE: ?.CASES REFERRED : ------- JUDGMENT : (Per LNR,,J.The legal representatives of the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.520 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, are the appellants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit. The suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of an Agreement of Sale, dated 07.12.1979. The 1st defendant (for short 'the defendant') in the suit i.e., the 1st respondent herein, agreed to sell an extent of Acs.12.35 guntas of land in Survey Nos.14 to 16 of Sikenderguda Village of Rajendranagar Taluk, R.R.District, for a sum of Rs.39,000/-. On the date of the agreement, advance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-11-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.14788 OF2013Dated:11-10-2013 M/S Mallikarjuna Medical & Genemral Stores, R/O D.No.10-72, Bibi pet, Domakonda Mandal, Nicamabad District .Petitioner Assistant Directo, Sales Licensing & Enforcement Authority, Drugs Control Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others ..Res[pmdemts Counsel for the Petitioners:M/s BHOOMA Goud COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS :GP fof Medical and Health HEAD NOTE: ?. Cases Regerred: 1.1974 (4) SCC2102. AIR1974SC5173. 1975 AP HIGH COURT NOTES74ORDER: The petitioner, a partnership firm carrying on business in sale of drugs and cosmetics, instituted this writ petition mounting a challenge to the order passed on 12.04.2013 by the Assistant Director, Sales Licensing and Enforcement Authority, Drugs Control Administration at Nizamabad, canceling the license granted to it earlier, for the violation of the conditions of license indulged in by the petitioner firm. The managing partner of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-07-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.21097 OF2013and batch Dated 07-08-2013 M/s.Durga Wines, A4 shop No.02, Nizamabad Town rep. by its Prop:Mr.Bantu Satyajith Reddy....Petitioner Govt. of A.P.rep., by its Secretary (Prohibition and Excise).Secretariat, Hyderabad & Ors.....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner:Sr.K.Durgaprasad Counsel for respondents: G.P.for Prohibition and Excise HEAD NOTE: ?.Citations: 1 (1975) 2 SCC482=AIR1976SC2632 (1967) 1 S.C.R.120 3 (1973) 3 SCC8894 AIR1974SC16825 1996) 4 SCC766 (1997) 116 PLR2527 (2004) 1 SCC7028 (1955) 2 SCR603= AIR1955SC6619 (1898) 2 Ch 28 10 1898 AC57111 (2004) 2 SCC112 (2004) 11 SCC2613 (2006) 4 SCC32714 (2011) 334 ITR387(AP) 15 (1996) 5 SCC26816 (2009) 14 SCC8517 (1995) 1 SCC574THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.21097, 22275, 22276, 22283 & 22318 OF2013Common Order: The question which arises for consideration, in this batch of Writ Petitions, is whether the amended Rule 28 (2) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on : May-22-2013
Oral Order: (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the orders dated 09.01.2012 in CC 234/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Warangal. 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 is the wife of the deceased Nagaraju, who died on 24-05-2008 due to fever and Vomtings. During his life time the deceased Nagaraju obtained Jeevan Mitra with Profits with DAB, covering Double/Thrible Risk with table 88 bearing NO.686904956 from opposite party No.1 for an assured sum of Rs.75,000/- commenced from 28-04-2007 for which the complainant is the nominee. After the death of her husband, as nominee, the complainant submitted the claim form along with relevant documents through Agent of opposite parties for settlement of the claim. But the opposite repudiated the claim vide letter dated 31-03-2010 on the ground that the life ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-25-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.16305 OF 200.25.03.2013 Dr.L.Sudhakar The Medical Council of India and two others Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Polavarapu Srinivas Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri Challa Gunaranjan. Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri V.V.Anil Kumar. Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri D.Prakash Reddy. : : Cases referred:1. W.P (civil) No.317 of 2000 (unreported) 2. (1974) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 39 3. 2007(4) ALD 13.(LB) 4. AIR 195.SC 54.(1) 5. (2010) 13 SUPREME COURT CASES 21 6. AIR 196.SUPREME COURT 133 7. (2003) 8 Supreme Court Case8. 2011 VII AD (DELHI9. (2004) 8 SC10. AIR 196.S.C11. AIR 196.SUPREME COURT 133 12. 2007 (4) ALD 13.(L.B.) 13. 2006 (2) ALT 28.14. (2010) 4 MLJ 63.15. (1999) 8 SCC 1.ORDER: Heard Sri Polavarapu Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri V.V.Anil Kumar, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-07-2013
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.160 OF200107-11-2013 Sri Sanjay Kumar Patengay S/o Satyanarayan Rao....Appellant Sri Satyanarayana Rao Patangay S/o Sri Ramji Patangay.... Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Sunil B Ganu Counsel for the respondents : Sri K Ramakrishna Reddy : : ?.Cases referred:2004. (6) ALT182012 (5) ALT43(1987) 2 SCC547(1993) 2 SCC507(2005) 12 SCC503AIR1951SC280AIR1947PC140AIR2003Karnataka 407 AIR1954SC352HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.160 OF2001JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Naveen Rao) The unsuccessful Plaintiffs are the appellants herein. Original Suit No.1006 of 1994 is filed by the plaintiffs for partition of suit schedule property into four equal shares, allotment of their respective shares as between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and for delivery of possession of the respective share. Plaintiff Nos.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on : Oct-25-2013
(Smt. M. Shreesha, I/C. President) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.84/2005 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District, the complainants preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants approached the opposite party hospital for treatment of their aged father for his illness as outpatient and were allotted OP No.20030600024 on 23-6-2003 and their father was advised to undergo necessary tests on the same day and on consecutive day also. The complainants submit that several tests like x-ray, Endoscopy, Ultrasonography, abdomen (male) Radiologist, diagnosis tests, CT Abdomen, Rectal I.V.Contrast, Gastroentrology (colonoscopy) etc., The complainant submitted that on 25th June, 2003, he discussed with opposite party No.3 but opposite party No.3 could not arrive any conclusion regarding the patients real problem even after conducting several tests in past 2 days. The complainant submitted that opposite party No.3 assured that there is no s...
Tag this Judgment!