Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Page 4 of about 2,101 results (0.053 seconds)

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!

Dec 08 2008 (HC)

Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. and AMR Technology Inc. rep. by Its Power ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2009(1)ALT362

..... to be produced through this letter of request are relevant for deciding the main civil action before the court of new jersey. the suit of the petitioner herein is for patent infringement against the respondent. as rightly held in wooster products inc. v. magna tek inc. and ors. reported in : air1989delhi6 , this court has ample power to allow the petition.29 ..... the united states immediately upon fda approval. aventis and amr assert that defendants' conduct constitutes infringement under 35 u.s.c 271 of one or more of the claims in patents assigned to amr and licensed to aventis.12. the relevant portion and the crucial portion of the letter of request is in para 8, which specifies evidence to be obtained ..... which evidence is needed (article 3(c) of the convention) had been referred to. the same reads as under:the above-captioned matter is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the united states. title 35, united states code, sections 100 et seq., brought by plaintiffs aventis pharmaceuticals inc. ('aventis') and amr technology, inc. ('amr'). this action .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 1972 (HC)

Pendela Narasimham and anr. Vs. Pendela Venkata Narasimham and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1973AP162

..... cases do not help the respondents.21. we, therefore, overrule the preliminary objection and held that defendants 1 and 2 are competent to file this letters patents appeals, and this appeal is entertainable.22. we will next take up the contention of appellants' counsel on merits. the learned counsel contended that a ..... was reversed by the appellate court, any of the parties to the appeal, under order xli, rule 4 of the civil procedure code, could file a letters patent appeal against the appellate court's decree.14. if a debt contracted by a 'karta' of a joint family is not for a legal necessity ..... no. 4 alone had filed an appeal to this court against the whole decree, and defendants 1 and 2, the appellants in this letters patent appeal, were also party-respondents in the appeal before our learned brother. the learned single judge reversed the finding of the trial court and held ..... exonerated defendant no. 4 from his liability. to pay the detb.7. the correctness of the judgment of our learned brother is challenged in this letters patent appeal before us, by defendants 1 and 2.8. the counsel for the respondents- plaintiffs raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable, ..... from the liability under the mortgage and substituted plaint b schedule property as security for a schedule property.2. the material facts leading to this letters patent appeal may briefly be stated; defendant no. 1 is the father of defendants 2 and 3 and 'karta' of the joint family comprising of himself .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 1968 (HC)

Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma Vs. Mulkluri Murlidahar Rao and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1970AP194

..... transfer merely because ther is a dispute regarding jurisdiction. in narain das v. khunni lal, (air 1934 all 569), iqbal ahmad, j., held tht court toentertain a suit is not patent or is ot admitted, the power of the high court to trnsfer a sut is untrammelled by any conditins and it si not necessary for the court before making an ..... a proper judicial process. ths case is really of no assistance because it was a case where the lack of jurisdiction of the subordinate judge to entertain the suit was patent and admitted and the order of transfer was itself made to get ever the plea of jurisdiction.6. in (1881) ilr 6 cal 30, an appeal was filed inadvertently in ..... a suit in the corut of a subordinate judge for damages for an alleged infringment of certain exclusive rights secured to him by three indian kpatents. s. 22 of the patents act expressly provided that such a sut could be laid only in the court of the district judge. the defendant filed a written statement objecting to the jurisdiction of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1990 (HC)

B.V. Subrahmanyam Vs. B. Seetha

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : II(1991)DMC247

..... divorce from her. as the respondent is an educated lady and was qualified in library science, she joined the bharathiya vidya bhavan and earning something instead of depending on her patents. simply because she is working at hyderabad, it cannot be said that she has no intention of joining her husband. both parties were interviewed by us and she expressed her .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1987 (HC)

Amruthappa Vs. Abdul Rasool

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1988AP215

..... orders under o. 43, r. 1, c.p.c. of single judges. but, the supreme court has incidentally dealt with the maintainability of letters patent appeals against first appellate orders of single judges under o. 43, r. 1, c.p. c. and clearly overrules later judgments of the allahabad high ..... objections are over-ruled.' 16. similarly anantakrishna ayyar, j, observed (at page 576) follows: - 'the question whether an appeal lies under cl. 15, letters patent, against the judgment of a single judge of the high court based on an appeal preferred to the high court under o. 43, c.p.c. (corresponding ..... (1903) 13 mad lj 497 the practice of this court has been uniformly to hold that the civil procedure code does not control the section of the letters patent, and that principle has been applied in other decisions of this court, for example, dhanaraju v. bala kishadass motilai, air 1929 mad 641 (fb). ..... ) as follow-, : 'secondly, mr. ramabhadra ayyar contended that under order 43, rule 1, the order of pandalai, j. was final and no letters patent appeal lay against his order. this question was the subject of consideration by several judges of this court under the old code and though at one time a ..... rendered by the single judge in first appeals - be they appeals against decrees or orders but provided they are 'judgments' as understood under the letters patent - an appeal would lie to a division bench. however, if the learned single judge rendered the judgments either in regular second appeals against the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1994 (HC)

A. Hemamalini Vs. A. Pankajanabham and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1994(3)ALT30; I(1995)DMC258

..... company of the appellant. the parents of the appellant took one or the other pretext and did not send the appellant to the first respondent. on 22.4.1985 the patents of the appellant met the first respondent and informed the latter that the appellant was missing from the house from the previous night and they also disclosed to the first .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 1995 (HC)

Kannegolla Ramchandra Rao and Company and anr. Vs. Smt. Kannegolla San ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1996(1)ALT120

..... the entire controversy revolves round the said issue. though we are not supposed to go through the evidence as the scope under clause 15 of letters patent appeal act is very much limited, with a view to see that justice is not only done but it is seemed to be done, we have ..... there is no illegality or material irregularity in the judgment of the learned single judge for this court to interfere under clause 15 of the letters patent appeal act, as the conclusion reached by the learned single judge is nothing but clear appreciation of evidence by placing reliance on the very same decision ..... referred to the same decisions which were cited before the trial judge and drew the distinction in between the same. aggrieved by the same, the present letters patent appeal is filed. 4. sri p. ramachandra reddy, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants, attacked the judgment and decree of the learned single judge ..... decreed the suit for a sum of rs. 27,452/- with interest at 12% from april 15, 1977 till realisation. assailing the same, the present letters patent appeal is preferred by defendants 1 and 2. 3. the brief facts of the case are that - smt. kannegolla santha kumari, kannegolla ramachandra rao, k.r ..... recovery of a sum of rs. 31,300/- being the principal and interest tnereon due to the plaintiff-1st respondent, are the appellants in this letters patents appeal. 2. the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. on an appeal filed by the plaintiff in a.s. no.1244 of 1980, the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1999 (HC)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manjampalli Mallamma and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2000(1)ALT9

..... they are carrying with them small quantities of rice and personal belongings.10. a division bench of this court in ravulapalli subbamma @ subbuhu's case (2 supra) while allowing letter patents appeal, held that the insurance company cannot be fastened with any liability even in the case of death of passengers who are carried for hire or reward in a lorry .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 2010 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Padmavathi Hatcheries (P) Limited,

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... act allows the assessee certain deductions in respect of depreciation of tangible assets like buildings, machinery, plant or furniture. deduction in respect of depreciation of intangible assets like know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature is also permitted. section 43 contains definitions of the terms used in sections 28 to 41 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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