Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Year: 1960 Page 1 of about 24 results (0.050 seconds)

Apr 21 1960 (HC)

Shakuntala and ors. Vs. M.B. Jaisoorya and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-21-1960

Reported in : AIR1961AP390

..... objection must fail. here we are only concerned with the judgment of a judge of the andhra pradesh high court and clause 15 of the letters patent would certainly apply.7. coming to the merits of the case the whole question depends upon the construction of the terms of the will. it is ..... and therefore, the andhra high court, which has now been named the andhra pradesh high court, would be governed by clause 15 of the letters patent and would exercise jurisdiction under that clause irrespective of the fact that the matter related to the telangana area of the hyderabad state.6. one other ..... . these sections, in our opinion, have no relevancy whatsoever to the question as to whether an appeal would lie under clause 15 of the letters patent against a judgment of a judge of the high court of andhra pradesh. sections 119 and 120 only say that by reason of territorial changes and ..... to exercise jurisdiction over all the territories in hyderabad, the hyderabad high court having ceased to exist.the necessary consequence of this was that the letters patent which governed the proceedings in the high court in so far as the andhra high court was concerned, applied to the andhra pradesh high court also. ..... was being argued.4. now before us sri ramachandra rao raised a preliminary objection stating that the appeal was incompetent because clause 15 of the letters patent could not apply to this case. the argument was that the suit was one filed in the hyderabad state and pertaining to the telangana area of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1960 (HC)

Rayalaseema Bank Ltd. Vs. Tharigopala Pedda Narayanappa and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-01-1960

Reported in : AIR1961AP483

..... 13 and 14 of the high courts act, 1861. it is unnecessary to reproduce these statutory provisions or clauses 36 and 37 of the letters patent. suffice it to say that these provisions empower the high court to make rules for regulating the practice of the court and to provide by its ..... viswanatha sastry, j. that:'the power to frame rules regulating its practice and procedure conferred on the high court under parliamentary enactments and the letters patent is preserved by article 225 of the constitution corresponding to section 223 of the government of india act, 1935, which takes us back to sections ..... judge's order declining to refer the appeal to a bench of two judges is a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent.24. we cannot, however, part with this case without expressing with respect, our dissent from the view taken by sanjeeva row nayudu, j. that ..... we are in entire agreement with the reasoning of the learned judges of the bombay high court in : air1952bom229 .16. clause 44 of the amended letters patent, applicable to this court, clearly enacts that they (sic) are subject to the powers of the indian legislature. we are therefore, of opinion that inasmuch ..... act, 1940, no appeal lies against any order under the act and to that extent the right of appeal given by clause 15 of the letters patent of the calcutta high court was curtailed and restricted.in madhavdas devidas v. vithaldas vasudeodas, : air1952bom229 a bench of the bombay high court consisting of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 1960 (HC)

K. Ch. Jagannadha Rao Minor by Father and Guardian K. Elesha Vs. Secre ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-27-1960

Reported in : AIR1961AP46

..... orders of an educational authority, the scope of my inteference is limited only to cases where that authority has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction, or has committed an error which is patent on the record or has done something which is manifestly opposed to the principles of natural justice. in this case there is no question of want of authority or jurisdiction .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 1960 (HC)

Walashan Prince Nawab Moazzam Jah Bahadur Vs. the Expenditure Tax Offi ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-23-1960

Reported in : AIR1961AP374; [1961]43ITR239(AP)

..... overstepped the bounds of his statutory authority or attempted to clutch at jurisdiction. it follows that the impugned notice is not bad for lack of jurisdiction, much less for a patent lack of jurisdiction, and the petitioner is not entitled to a writ of prohibition.28. in the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. advocate's fee .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 1960 (HC)

Mohd. Abdul Azeem Vs. Syed Miram

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-10-1960

Reported in : AIR1961AP65

..... to reopen that question. the two situations are different and distinct. in the circumstances, we cannot give effect to the objection of the respondent. 8. in the result, the letters patent appeal is allowed. there will be no order as to costs. 9. the appeal will be posted for final disposal on 13-4-1960. the appellant will file typed papers .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 1960 (HC)

Chirala Buchi Reddi Vs. Satti Savitramma

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-17-1960

Reported in : AIR1961AP305

jaganmohan reddy, j. 1. this appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent against the judgment of our learned brother sanjeeva row nayudu, j. raises the question whether the decree-holder is bound to proceed against the properties given as charge in respect .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 1960 (HC)

M. Agaiah Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kereem

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-05-1960

Reported in : AIR1961AP201

..... deciding it on merits, the review petition was competent and therefore the judgment of the trial court could not be successfully questioned. this appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent is preferred against that decision.6. there can be little doubt that the view ofthe learned judge that it is rule 3 that applies andnot rule 2 is unsustainable.7 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 1960 (HC)

Mungara Venkataramaniah and ors. Vs. Vudata Subbramayya

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-07-1960

Reported in : AIR1961AP245

chandra reddy, c.j. 1. this appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent is filed against the judgment of our learned brothel seshachalapati j., in s. a. no. 914 of 1955.2. the point that fall's for decision in this appeal is ..... argued before us.19. it follows that the conclusions of our learned brother are unassailable and the judgment under appeal has to be affirmed.20. in the result, the letters patent appeal is dismissed without costs.

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1960 (HC)

Nagamma and ors. Vs. ChIn Basappa and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-23-1960

Reported in : AIR1961AP257

..... the third member of the joint family who was not one of the promisees, was not fatal to the suit. it is this view that is canvassed in this letters patent appeal. 7. in support of the appeal, it is urged by sri harinarayanlal for the appellants that two only of the three members of the joint family were not entitled ..... p. chandra reddy, c.j.1. this appeal is against the judgment of ansari j. (as he then was) with his leave under clause 15 of the letters patent, 2. the material facts leading to this appeal may be briefly narrated. one basi reddy executed a document on 24th april 1941 to evidence a loan of rs. 1425/- in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 1960 (HC)

Kalyanam Narasayya Vs. Kalyanam Seetaramma

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-02-1960

Reported in : AIR1961AP60

..... . here again, it is the statement of the appellant mentioned above that was responsible for the result of the appeal. aggrieved by this decision the husband has brought this letters patent appeal.10. the sole question for determination in this appeal is whether the allegations in the petition have been made out by the appellant. indisputably, the burden is very heavy ..... chandha reddy, c.j.1. this is an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent against the order of our learned brother, manoher pershad, j. in c. m. p. 354 of 1953.2. the appellant sought dissolution of his marriage with the respondent under section .....

Tag this Judgment!


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