Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Court: andhra pradesh Year: 2011 Page 8 of about 103 results (0.061 seconds)

Dec 20 2011 (TRI)

Sss Promoters, Developers, Constructions, Marketeers. Rep. by Its Mana ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Dec-20-2011

..... complainant being the defaulter will not get the amount paid by her as she failed to pay the balance amount and get the plot registered. there is no privity of contract between the parties relating to sale transaction of the plot as alleged in the complaint and there is no deficiency of service on their part. the opposite parties submit that ..... sale of plots coupled with development of infrastructure/amenities/layout approvals and the obligations undertaken pursuant there to is ??service within the meaning of section 2(1)(o) of the act. this judgement clearly establishes that consumer fora have jurisdiction to entertain the matters pertaining to execution of sale deeds of plots wherein a developer seeks to develop and sell those .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 2011 (TRI)

Dr. G. Koulaiah Vs. J. Srinivas

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Nov-30-2011

..... and that they should exercise reasonable care in the discharge of their duties. in general, a professional man owns to his client a duty in tort as well as in contract to exercise reasonable care in giving advise or performing services ? . supreme court then opined as under: ??the skill of medical practitioner differs from doctor to doctor. the very nature of ..... due care and caution. medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient, but as long as a doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the medical profession and the court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care, skill and diligence and if the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 2011 (TRI)

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented by Its Branch Mana ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Nov-28-2011

..... permitting the vehicle to ply on the road without obtaining the fitness certificate which is essential in the teeth of section 66 of the motor vehicles act. the repudiation of the claim by the appellant insurance company is just and valid. the order of the district forum is liable to be set ..... whether a passenger carrying vehicle or a goods carriage unless the owner thereof holds permit within the meaning of sec 2 (31) of the motor vehicles act. 18. in the light of the principle laid by the natinal commission and the honble supreme court, we hold that the respondent has violated the ..... repudiation of the claim holding that conditions of the permit does not allow carrying of dangerous or hazardous goods. 13. section 66 of the m.v.act deals with the necessity of permit for a transport vehicle in any public place. it reads as under: 66. necessity for permit: no owner of ..... in the absence of fitness certificate, the respondent cannot ply the vehicle and if he does it amounts to violation of provisions of the motor vehicle act which in turn is breach of conditions of the insurance policy. 11. the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has contended that there was ..... division of air freight limited and that the supreme court held that parties to contract are bound by the terms of the contract. the respondent had violated the terms of the insurance policy and the provisions of the motor vehicle act. if the insurance company is liable to pay any amount under the insurance policy .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 2011 (TRI)

E.N. Rammohan Rao Vs. Hyderabad Nursing Home (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Mana ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Oct-10-2011

..... and that they should exercise reasonable care in the discharge of their duties. in general, a professional man owes to his client a duty in tort as well as in contract to exercise reasonable care in giving advice or performing services. (see: jackson and powell on professional negligence, 3rd edn. paras 1-04,1-05 and 1-56). 88. in achutrao ..... treatment on the part of a doctor is whether he has been proved to be guilty of such failure as no doctor of ordinary skill would be guilty of if acting with ordinary care...". the court per lord scarman added as under:- "a doctor who professes to exercise a special skill must exercise the ordinary skill of his specialty. differences of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 2011 (TRI)

J. Gopala Krishna Rao Vs. M. Sudhakar, Chairman and Managing Director ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Sep-13-2011

..... allotted to the complainant was sold away. whatever be the reason, we are of the opinion, in view of the fact that very complainant did not fulfil the terms of contract by paying the amounts in instalments on due dates, and that there was enormous delay of six years in payment of amounts, we do not intend to direct the respondent ..... . 2,60,000/- he had paid hardly rs. 82,000/- as on 16.6.2002. since the agreement was not cancelled nor repudiated by virtue of article 54 of limitation act it cannot be said that claim was barred by limitation, more so, in case of immovable property. 12) the respondent in order to impress that it has sold away the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 2011 (TRI)

M/S. San Enterprises, Reptd. by Its Partner (Alleged Partner) Dr.K.Mad ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Jul-29-2011

..... them and that this opposite party had nothing to do with the firms san enterprises and did not receive any amount from the complainant and there is no privity of contract between this opposite party and the complainant. the receipt which the complainant has filed has not been signed by m.s.reddy neither in the capacity of managing partner or ..... in this instant case. since it is a partnership firm and exhibits have established that opposite party no.1 is also a partner, the liability according to the indian partnership act is joint and several and therefore all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable. hence we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the district .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 2011 (TRI)

K. Satyanarayana Vs. Kanchiraju Raja Ram and Another

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Jul-20-2011

..... .2 in favour of the complainant. 8. the opposite party no.1 has filed the appeals on the same grounds that had been the pleadings there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite partyno.1 and that the suit o.s.no.2138 of 2007 had been pending before the court ii addl. senior civil judge, ranga ..... .9.2007 before the ii addl. senior civil judge, ranga reddy district. the relief for delivery of property is a matter to be decided under the provisions of specific relief act and as regards to the construction of the flats, there is no agreement between the complainant and the opposite party no.1. 6. the complainant has filed his affidavit and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2011 (TRI)

M/S Sai Ram Builders Rep. by Its Managing Partner Sri Pasala Gangadhar ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Mar-29-2011

..... as also on account of non-payment of excess amount orally agreed to be paid by the complainant. 5. the third opposite party has contended there is no privity of contract between him and the complainant and his undivided property to the complainant. it was contended that the third opposite party is not liable for the ..... acts of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 as also that no relief had been claimed against him. 6. the complainant has filed his affidavit and got marked exs.a1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 2011 (TRI)

M/S. Navya Chaitanya Housing (P) Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director V ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Nov-29-2011

..... in sai laxmi nagar on payment of balance amount, but did not do so. it is the complainants case that the opposite party failed to perform his part of the contract which constitutes deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite party. it is the appellant/opp.partys case that the company has become defunct. we observe from the record that ..... the opposite party did not cancel the membership of the complainant nor refunded the amount and therefore the cause of action as per article 54 of the limitation act is continuing as the date of limitation begins from the date on which the agreement is cancelled which in the instant case did not take place. therefore we are of ..... notice was sent to the opposite party it was returned as ??addressee left without instructions. it is the last known address and as per section 28(a) of c.p.act notice is served on the last known address and there are no instructions given by the opposite party, it is deemed to be served. except for stating that the company .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 2011 (TRI)

Shaji M.K. Vs. the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Trai), Rep. b ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Oct-12-2011

..... of south central railway extended facility of mobile telephone connection from m/s. tata tele services, wherein he had cug facility. alleging that contrary to the terms of the contract between the south central railway and tata teleservices the latter has been collecting amounts by issuing bills. when he sought for those bills, they did no furnish, and that ..... tele services as well as south central railway, he sought for compensation. 12) it is an undisputed fact that r1 trai is constituted under telecom regulatory authority of india act. the act itself provides an appellate authority empowering to adjudicate disputes between service provider and a group of consumers. it is vested with both legislative and regulatory functions. by no stretch ..... of his privacy, wastage of time and costs. 3) r1 (trai) resisted the case on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable under the consumer protection act. the trai act itself provides an appellate authority empowering to adjudicate disputes between service provider and a group of consumers. it is neither a seller of goods nor service provider. the consumer ..... provided therein. the honble supreme court in general manager, telecom vs. m. krishnan held that the consumer fora have no jurisdiction to decide the issues arising under indian telegraph act, and the customers have to approach the arbitrators for redressal of their grievances. while obtaining the telephone connection it has opted for various services that are being provided by .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //