Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Page 10 of about 2,101 results (0.053 seconds)

Nov 21 1997 (HC)

P. Neelakanteswaramma and ors. Vs. Uppari Muthamma and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1998(1)ALD234

..... cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case and the finality of the judgment rendered by the court will not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in order by judicial fallibility. when on appreciation the court took a view which the only possible view warranted in view of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 1997 (HC)

Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs. M/S. Rama Spinners Priv ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1997AP415; 1997(4)ALT649; [1998]94CompCas233(AP)

orderp. s. mishra, c. j,1. this appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent is preferred by the andhra pradesh state financial corporation, who, it is alleged, has failed to meet the commitment under an agreement to release the loan amount of rs. 60 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1991 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.N. Viswanatha Reddy

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : (1991)98CTR(AP)49; [1991]190ITR266(AP)

..... noticed, learned standing counsel contended that the decision of this court in kangundi industrial works (p.) ltd. v. ito : [1980]121itr339(ap) , though subsequent to the assessment order, exposes the patent error permeating the assessment order and, therefore, the income-tax officer was well within his authority in rectifying the assessment order based upon a binding decision of this court. he ..... rectification, it could not be said that there was a patent mistake vitiating the assessment order. in fact, at that stage, he was confronted with the decision of the gujarat high court in bharat textile works : [1978]114itr28(guj) which took ..... interpretation of section 214. it is not possible to say that the income-tax officer, while passing the assessment order dated april 14, 1975, had fallen into a manifest or patent error in allowing interest under section 214. even at the stage when the income-tax officer clutched at his jurisdiction under section 154 by issuing a show cause notice proposing ..... , it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, sri y. ratnakar, that there is neither a mistake in the assessment order nor is the mistake, if any, a patent or obvious mistake. to support his contention that the subsequent decisions do not afford justification for invoking the powers under section 154, learned counsel cited certain decisions of the calcutta .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 1976 (HC)

Buddala China Venkata Rao and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [1978]112ITR58(AP); [1978]41STC232(AP)

..... glaring and obvious cannot be similarly rectified. prima facie it may appear somewhat strange that an order which was good and valid when it was made should be treated as patently invalid and wrong by virtue of the retrospective operation of the amendment act.....' the action of the income-tax officer was held to be justified. to a like effect is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 1990 (HC)

M. Srinivas Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1991(3)ALT1

..... chemicals, : air1986guj156 wherein the said courts understood the supreme court judgment in shah babulal khimji's case (2 supra) as holding that no letters patent appeal is maintainable against appellate orders of learned single judges while disposing of appeals under section 104(1) read with order 43, rule 1, c. ..... the proper way of reconciling the several paragraphs in the judgment is to hold that the supreme court accepted that clause 15 of the letter patent gave an independent jurisdiction conferring right of appeal against 'judgments' of learned single judges of the high court whether passed in original jurisdiction or ..... several extracts from cases which are approved by the supreme court, which do support the opposite contention that section 104(2) did not bar letters patent appeals but merely barred further appeals under the code. these latter passages and extracts to which we shall presently refer, read along with the ..... the said application was rejected by the learned single judge of the high court. the plaintiff preferred an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent and at that stage, the respondent raised an objection as to its main-taxability. the learned single judge held that, in as much as ..... for review is appealable. on a parity of reasoning therefore, an order dismissing an application for review would also be appealable under the letters patent being a judgment though it is not made appealable under order 43 rule 1.of course, the order refusing to review must be a ' .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 2006 (HC)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Surya Prakash Reddy and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : I(2007)ACC361; 2006ACJ2287; 2006(4)ALD530

..... and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a learned single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the ..... restricted or regulated in relation to particular categories of matters by incorporating provisions in the corresponding enactments. conversely, restriction placed in one enactment on the applicability of the letters patent cannot be applied to those under the other enactments. if that were to have been so, the earliest of the amendments, in an enactment, which prohibited, expressly, ..... 15 of letters patent, can be excluded only by causing necessary amendments in the relevant provisions of the concerned enactments, and not through any other means. this aspect of the matter was further ..... appeal, against a judgment of a single judge, the right to entertain the appeal would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned excludes an appeal under the letters patent.(emphasis supplied).29. the underlined portions in the two paragraphs extracted above, clearly indicate that, in relation to the matters arising under special enactments, the appeal under clause .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1997 (HC)

Yamunanagar Co-operative House Building Society, Rep. by Its President ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1997(4)ALT317

..... cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the court will not be reconsidered except 'where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in order by judicial fallibility'. an error apparent on the face of the record exists if of two or more views canvassed on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2003 (HC)

S.V.B.N.R. English Medium High School Vs. Commissioner of Endowments a ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2003(4)ALD173; 2003(4)ALT802

..... relates to that schedule. but, in the instant case the schedule as already observed is a totally different schedule containing different properties. thus it is not only a case of patent error in procedure, but a capricious exercise of discretion resulting in manifest injustice. thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned order cannot be salvaged.29. accordingly, the civil revision petition ..... beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure, arriving a finding which is perverse or based on no material, or resulting in manifest injustice. as regards finding of fact of the inferior court, the high .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1995 (HC)

Yarlagadda Venkakka Choudary (Dead) and anr. Vs. Daggubati Lakshminara ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1996(1)ALT877

..... 65 of the limitation act, 1963. the period of limitation for such a suit is 12years when the possession of the defendants became adverse to the plaintiffs. patently neither rajamma nor plaintiffs were in possession of the suit lands within 12 years next before the suit. strictly speaking, it ran to commence from the year ..... a-6 the partition deed between defendant no. 1 and his sons dated 27-7-1957 which came into existence within a short time after ex.a-3 patently omitted to include suit lands for the purpose of partition although they are said to be the joint family properties. (3) the cordial relationship between the parties at ..... law by both leal and illegal methods. it may stretch for sufficient time both before and after the legislation. ex.a-3 is dated 12-4-1957. patently it has come into existence within the close proximity of such a land legislation, the learned sub judge has rightly pointed out that even the plaintiffs 1 ..... execute gift deed in respect of the lands already presented to her, so that disputes my not arise in future with his sons. such an expression is patently absent in the plaint wherein it is stated that rajamma felt that it well be better in the interest of all concerned to have a registered instrument ..... 3 if that gift is true and at any rate can never be an acknowledgement of a gift, since it was never made by any of them. patently, ex. a-3 is a unilateral document. rajamma is not a party to the document. p.w.i has admitted that neither he nor rajamma was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2015 (HC)

Nallavelli Ashok The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secreta ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... pass interlocutory orders. grant of interlocutory order is at the discretion of election tribunal. writ of certiorari can be issued to correct jurisdictional error or if the order passed is patently erroneous. this court cannot go into the merits as to whether the tribunal was justified in exercising discretion to pass the orders of suspension, when the same is made on ..... due consideration of rival claims. this court cannot substitute its view to the view of the election tribunal. the order impugned herein cannot be termed as patently erroneous. since, the election o.p., is pending consideration, this court cannot go into the merits of the issue involved at this stage. 15. accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .....

Tag this Judgment!


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