//
archives

padmavathi

This tag is associated with 3 posts

The factual matrix of this case are that in the month of June, 2003, first respondent had issued an advertisement offering equity shares of the Maruthi Udyog Ltd. (which name has since been changed to Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.) by way of public offer under disinvestment process of this public sector undertaking by Government of India on the basis of bid-cum-offer sale. To compensate the petitioner/complainant in respect of the lesser allotment of 300 shares by paying an amount which shall be equal to the difference in the closing market price of the company shares at the National Stock Exchange on the day of the allotment in question and the fixed allotment price of Rs.125/-. In addition, interest @ 6% shall be paid on this amount of compensation calculated on 300 shares w.e.f. the date of allotment till actual payment to the complainant. (ii) After notionally adjusting the fixed allotment price @ Rs.125 per share for 350 shares i.e. Rs.43,750/-, the complainant would have been entitled for a refund of Rs.71,250/-. Since she received a refund cheque of Rs.5,250/-, the Bank i.e. respondents No.3 & 4 with whom the amount of refund is reported to be lying, shall refund remaining amount of Rs.66,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of allotment till actual payment.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 2702 OF 2006 (From the order dated 8.6.2006 in First Appeal No.1215 & 1216 of 2004 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Karnataka)   Dr. (Mrs.) B.P. Gayathri R/o Door No.1413, 6th Cross, K.M. Puram, Mysore– 570 004                                    …  Petitioner Versus   1.    Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. … Continue reading

1) Whether the 1st plaintiff is entitled to the benefits of A.P. Act 13 of 1986 and entitled to an independent share apart from the share she succeeds from her mother? 2) Whether the unmarried sister of 1st plaintiff by name Sundaramma is also entitled for share? 3) Whether the adopted son Ranga Swamy Naidu and his heirs are entitled for any share in the joint family properties? 4) Whether the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, is legal and sustainable?

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.433 OF 2001 19-07-2011 R.V.PADMAVATHI AND OTHERS GANGARAPU SUDARSANA CHOUDARY AND OTHERS COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: ——– COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS :———– :COMMON JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the 1st plaintiff and 12th defendant in O.S.No.24 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. … Continue reading

The suit was filed in the year 1985 nearly 32 years after the death of the father and it is difficult to believe and accept that after the devolution of the interest of the father of the 1st plaintiff in her mother Achamma, still there continues to be a coparcenary, where-under she has got a right to claim for partition. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding, viewed from any angle, the 1st plaintiff is not entitled to the benefits of the amended Section 29(A) of the State Act or the amended Central Act 39 of 2005, she shall be entitled to the shares along with others in the property of her mother Achamma.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.433 OF 2001 19-07-2011 R.V.PADMAVATHI AND OTHERS GANGARAPU SUDARSANA CHOUDARY AND OTHERS COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: ——– COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS :———– :COMMON JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the 1st plaintiff and 12th defendant in O.S.No.24 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,323 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com