Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Page 7 of about 2,101 results (0.052 seconds)

Jul 22 2008 (HC)

K. Ganna Reddy S/O K. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. the Government of Andhra P ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2008(5)ALD485; 2008(5)ALT214

..... chemicals ltd.) : [1967]1scr898 .12. in cases where an issue is raised that the government's opinion has been formed in a manifestly arbitrary or perverse fashion without regard to patent, actual and undeniable facts, or that such opinion has been arrived at on the basis of irrelevant considerations or no material at all, or on materials so tenuous, flimsy, slender ..... .19. as we are satisfied that the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to quashed on the ground that the 1st respondent had formed its opinion in a patently illegal manner and that it does not fulfill the statutory requirement of containing of a statement of reasons of the 1st respondent to remove the appellant, it is wholly unnecessary .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 2000 (HC)

J.K. Traders, Hyd. Vs. State of A.P. and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2000(6)ALD17; 2000(5)ALT726

..... the court to grant such remedial relief may include the power to award compensation in appropriate cases. of course of the infringement of the fundamental right must be gross and patent, that is, incontrovertible and ex facie glaring and either such infringement should be on a large scale affecting the fundamental rights of a large number of persons, or it should ..... compensation may be awarded in a petition under article 32'.17. thus the main thrust of the case was that the infringement of the fundamental right must be gross and patent i.e., incontrovertible and ex facie glaring and this remedial measure should be invoked in exceptional cases.18. in charan lal sahu 's case (supra), the supreme court upheld the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 02 2001 (HC)

Baddam Prabhavathi Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2001(6)ALD655; 2001(6)ALT584

..... the party in sufferance is a respondent to the us or proceedings cannot confer any further sanctity or authority and validity which it is shown and found to obviously and patently lack 68. for the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the orders of the state government in g.o.ms.no. 88, dated 25-7-2001 are valid .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2005 (HC)

Prathipati Bhagyamma and ors. Vs. Election Officer, Muppalla Primary A ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2005(6)ALD850

..... done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election.27. some of the learned counsel have strenuously urged that when there is patent illegality in violation of act and rules, writ petition is not barred. i am afraid, the submission cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the supreme court in ..... settled that when once an election process has begun, this court should not ordinarily interfere in the said election process. but when once the rejection order of a candidate is patently bad, it is not desirable for this court to drive such a person to an election tribunal. if there are any disputed facts and those disputed facts have to be ..... nominations filed by their respective clients or acceptance of the nominations of the contesting respondents is illegal. they would urge that when the rejection of the nomination is vitiated by patent illegality, the exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india is not barred.15. learned government pleader for co-operative department sri seshagiri rao submits that when .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 23 2001 (HC)

U. Govinda Rao and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2002(1)ALD347; 2002(1)ALT713

..... parties. if the management for good reasons have classified the posts into two categories with different pay scales, the courts generally must accept unless it is demonstrated that it is patently erroneous either in law or on facts.94. it is one thing to say that having regard to devi prasad and k.s. muralidhar that weightage rule is not arbitrary .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1991 (HC)

M/S. Ajay Constructions and Etc. Vs. Kakateeya Nagar Co-operative Hous ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1991AP294

..... on condition that they should have adequate septic tank and soakage pit facilities, the action of the municipality in allowing them to utilise the underground pipe line of habshiguda is patently illegal. he has also contended that the sole authority for granting permission for multistoried structure of this nature isthe huda alone and that the municipality cannot commit a breach of ..... construction of the flats has been violated and if the opinion of the committee of experts consisting of technical personnel is to be accepted, it would amount to legalising a patently illegal act which cannot be permitted under the terms of the permit granted by huda to m/s. ajay constructions for raising the multistoried structure. in such an event, the ..... outside the septic tanks and the soakage pits to be put up for this purpose. it is evident that m/s. ajay constructions could not be allowed to regularise a patent illegality committed by them by connecting their sewerage pipe line to the underground municipal pipe line of habshiguda for discharging the offensive material. this means that the permit condition for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 1991 (HC)

Bank of India, Vijayawada Vs. Katamaneni Suryanarayana and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1992AP345; 1992(1)ALT125

..... , 1932 or any debt due to any corporation formed in pursuance of an act of parliament of the united kingdom or any special indian law or royal charter or letters patent'.6. in the decision reported in indian bank, alamuru v. m. krishnamurthy, air 1983 ap 347, a division bench consisting of p.a. choudary and p. kodandaramayya, jj., held that ..... the words, 'any debt due to any corporation formed in pursuance of an act of parliament of the united kingdom or any special indian law or royal charter or letters patent' is also offensive to article 14 of the constitution and accordingly the last part of s. 4(e) is void'.this decision of our high court is overruled by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 2004 (HC)

R. Krishnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2005AP10; 2004(2)ALD794; 2004(2)ALT730

..... . the union of india has failed in its duty to uphold the constitution and its values as mandated by article 355 and the issuance of the impugned ordinance is a patent breach of the constitution, which has resulted in the break down of the constitutional machinery in the state of andhra pradesh warranting urgent action under articles 355 and 356 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 14 1959 (HC)

Manepalli Venkatanarayana, Proprietor, Venkateswara Electrical Rice Mi ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1960AP171; [1959]10STC524(AP)

..... doctrine. the contention there was that the deputy commissioner under the board of revenue acting under section 12(2) of the madras general sales tax act could only correct errors patent on the face of the record and could not probe further into the records, like calling for despatch register and other evidence.this contention was rejected in the view that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 1999 (HC)

P. Prakash Archbald Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2000(2)ALD44

..... -1999 which, at any rate, is in the nature of a step towards exercise of the power of review/ reconsideration of the earlier order dated 5-11-1999, is incompetent, patently and manifestly without jurisdiction and ultra viresthe provisions of the act. the impugned order is accordingly set aside.8. sri mohan reddy, learned counsel for the party-respondents, however, would ..... the fact that the statutory provision does not grant any power of revision of the orders passed in exercise thereof, the impugned are dated 9-11-1999 is inherently and patently ultra vires section 34 of the act, without jurisdiction and non est.3. this court by order dated 18-11-1999 in wpmp no.30098 of 1999 suspended the impugned .....

Tag this Judgment!


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