Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Court: andhra pradesh state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc hyderabad Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.040 seconds)

Oct 19 2012 (TRI)

Sudhakar Kasireddy and Another Vs. M/S. Maytas Properties Ltd. Rep. by ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Oct-19-2012

..... the case. the complainants have approached the bank for availing loan for purchase of flat and they entered into agreement of sale with the developer. basing on the application and income profile of the complainants and the agreement of sale entered into between the complainants and the developer it (the bank) had agreed to sanction loan as per the norms. ..... sale on various dates agreeing to sell flats as alleged in the complaint for the consideration mentioned therein excluding stamp duty, registration fee, vat, service tax etc. the project was commenced as per the schedule. however, on a wholly incorrect understanding of its association with mr. b. ramalinga raju, various investigations and proceedings were ..... the application, the petitioner herein approached the state commission which dismissed the appeal filed and whereupon the depositor approached district forum under section 27(1) of the consumer protection act, 1986 by filing penalty petition. the second category of cases are those where the depositor filed a penalty petition before the district forum for implementation of the order in ..... is filed for the above mentioned reliefs. 3) the developer filed counter resisting the claim. it admitted that it is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of companies act inter-alia engaged in the business of construction. it alleged that it started a venture, under the name and style ??maytas hill county. they entered into an agreements of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 2012 (TRI)

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Rep. by Senior Divisional Manager ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Oct-09-2012

..... not having valid and requisite driving license. alleging that it amounts to deficiency, he claimed rs. 2,42,000/- towards expenses and repairs, rs. 1,31,200/- towards loss of income, rs. 25,000/- towards transportation charges, rs. 25,000/- towards garage charges and costs. 3) the appellant insurance company resisted the case. while admitting issuance of policy it alleged that ..... was renewed for a period of twenty years i.e. from february 5, 2000 to february 4, 2020. again, there was no endorsement as required by section 3 of the act. a specific plea was taken by the insurance company but the authorities held the insurance company liable which could not have been done. the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by .....

Tag this Judgment!


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