Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Year: 1975 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.051 seconds)

Dec 24 1975 (HC)

Emana Veeraraghavamma Vs. Gudiseva Subbarao and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-24-1975

Reported in : AIR1976AP337

..... said special rule of succession under section 15(2)(a) cannot apply. the learned judge, however, thought it fit to grant leave and accordingly the plaintiff has filed this letters patent appeal.4. mr. parabrahma sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the 1/3rd interest inherited by the deceased subbamma, has to revert back along with any accretions ..... invested or may have been used in any other manner.7. for this above reasons, we are of the opinion that the suit has to fail and accordingly this letters patent appeal is dismissed with costs.8. appeal dismissed. ..... jeevan reddy, j.1. this letters patent appeal is preferred with leave against the judgment of a.d.v. reddy, j, allowing the second appeal with costs 2. one nanduri nagayya owning an extent of ac. 1- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1975 (HC)

income-tax Officer, A-ward Vs. Official Liquidator

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-05-1975

Reported in : [1977]47CompCas54(AP); [1977]106ITR119(AP)

kondaiah, j.1. this original side appeal by the income-tax officer, nellore, under clause 15 of letters patent, gives rise to a short but interesting question of law, viz., whether the official liquidator who, under section 497(6) of the companies act, 1956, is in charge of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 1975 (HC)

Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.J. Devda

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-25-1975

Reported in : [1977]109ITR484(AP)

..... referred the law enacted with retroactive operation.'11. we would like to emphasise the words 'the duty of the high court to apply to the question referred', it is, therefore, patent that what the supreme court decided in commissioner of sales tax v. bijli cotton mills : [1964]7scr383 is limited in its scope, viz., that the law as it came to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1975 (HC)

V.T.V. Rangacharyulu and anr. Vs. Sriram Gnaneswar

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-01-1975

Reported in : AIR1976AP301

..... therein, the supreme court did not consider it necessary to formulate a definition of the word 'judgment' as appearing in cl. 15 of the letters patent. it however, touched upon the various views propounded by the rangoon, calcutta, madras high courts without commenting as to the propriety or otherwise of the ..... air 1953 sc 18, four tests were formulated to decide whether an adjudication of a single judge is a 'judgment' under cl 15 of the letters patent. they were : (1) whether the order or judgment of the single judge terminates the suit or proceedings? (2) whether it affects the merits of ..... the madras high court in palaniappa's case further extended the view with regard to the word 'judgment' appearing in cl. 15 of the letters patent to include the determination of a valuable right and a correlative liability between the parties to the enquiry under order 33, c.p.. relying upon asrumati ..... interpretations given by the various courts in this country with regard to the interpretation of the expression 'judgment' contained in cl. 15 of the letters patent. suffice it to say that on the one extreme is the view as propounded in dayabhai jiwandass v. murugappa chettiar, air 1935 rang 267 (fb ..... rights or liabilities of the parties in the suit, and, therefore, it is not a judgment within the meaning of cl. 15 of the letters patent. on the other hand, the learned advocate general contends that the submission of mr.waghray is in accordance with the narrow interpretation placed by some courts .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 1975 (HC)

Valluri Appayya and ors. Vs. Dosapati Narasimhamurty and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-22-1975

Reported in : AIR1976AP295

..... of his contention. it has been held therein that the correctness of an interlocutory order made by a single judge can be canvassed in the letters patent appeal preferred against the final judgment in the said appeal. however, that was a case where the interlocutory order referred to was merely an order calling ..... aforesaid supreme court decision was referred to and it was held that inasmuch as no appeal lies from an order of remand under claue 10 of the letters patent of nagpur high court (corresponding to our clause 15), the correctness of such an order can be gone into in the appeal against the final order. ..... herein.10. in srinivasa varadachariar av. runganayaki ammal (air 1929 mad 349) (supra) it was held that clause 15 of the letters patent is not controlled by section 105, c.p.c. and that is open to an appellant, though he did not appeal against the order of remand to ..... points out that the defendants did not even ask for leave before the said learned judge. he submits that section 105(2) applies to the letters patent appeals which are in the nature of internal. appeals in the same court and that the same limitations as are applicable in the second appeal also apply ..... appeal holding that the said agraharam is not an estate. the defendants filed an appeal which has been dismissed by madhava reddy, j. hence this letters patent appeal by leave.4. the conclusion that the venkatrayuni agraharamis an estate within the meaning of section 3 (2) (d) of the act was arrived .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1975 (HC)

The Metal Press Works Ltd. Vs. Guntur Merchants Cotton Press Co. Ltd.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-05-1975

Reported in : AIR1976AP205

..... . act and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be denied the right of possession. in the result, the second appeal was dismissed but the learned judge has granted leave. hence this letters patent appeal by the defendant-lessee.5. mr. n. bapirju, the learned counsel for the appellant, pressed upon us that his client has not waived the right to insist upon the ..... with the year of the tenancy. the suit was decreed. the appeal by the lessee before a learned single judge of the high court was not successful. in the letters patent appeal, the same points were canvassed before the division bench. horwill, j., speaking for the court, observed, (at page 408 and 409) thus :--- 'it seems to us that when there .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 1975 (HC)

The Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Rajendranagar Vs. Mahmoodu ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-18-1975

Reported in : AIR1976AP134

..... 3 of the affidavit, the petitioner specifically referred to the decision of chinnappa reddy, j., dated 24-701973 that the university could not maintain the appeal and to the letters patent appeal preferred against that decision, which was admitted on 3-9-1973. it is indeed curious that despite this decision, the 2nd respondent did not file the present petition earlier ..... . speaking for himself and venkatarama aiyer, j., observed at p. 490 :'the provisions as regards appeal in england are not materially different from those contained in the civil procedure code or letters patent. in neither of them is there are express mention of persons who could appeal. in our opinion, the practice consistently followed by the english courts is just and equitable practice ..... its owners. the person for whose benefit the land is proposed to be acquired has no place in the exercise of the sovereign power by the state. this is a patent reason why the act has limited the scope of the lis in regard to acquisition between the owner of the land and the sovereign state.14. we may close the ..... persons interested. neither the land acquisition officer nor the person for whose benefit the land has been acquired can invoke the aid of this provision and seek reference. that is patently for the reason that the land acquisition officer being an officer of the state, could not have acted adversely to its interests. further, the government is bound by the acts .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1975 (HC)

P. Venkateseshamma Vs. the State Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-22-1975

Reported in : AIR1976AP1

..... exercise of power with an ulterior motive. that this amendment ordinance offends the fundamental rights guaranteed to a citizen under articles 14, 21 and 22 of the constitution, is quite patent and would therefore be wholly void under article 13(2) of the constitution in the ordinary circumstances. 25. so too are the provisions of the second amendment ordinance if at ..... an individual even without reference to any law. it is difficult to envisage that the declaration of the president could even have been intended for the purpose of authorising such patently illegal action of depriving a person of his liberty ever, without reference to any law on the footing that such a right does not exist independent of articles 14, 19 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 30 1975 (HC)

The Tahsildar, Hyderabad and anr. Vs. T. Venkata Reddy

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-30-1975

Reported in : AIR1976AP326

..... preposterous to think that the president has laid an impossible embargo that the candidate should not have studied in any educational institution. learned solicitor general tries to get over this patent absurdity by saying that perhaps a candidate could have studied privately without attending any educational institutions. it is impossible to understand that the provision is intended only for candidates who ..... of the requirement of residence would not only be preposterous but would positively violate against the very spirit and intendment of the constitutional amendment and the presidential order. manifestly and patently the residential requirement is in regard to the family's and not that of any particular individual member of that family. may be for a short while or even for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 1975 (HC)

Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation Vs. R. Maheshwari and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-15-1975

Reported in : AIR1976AP232

..... can only be in relation to the scheme published under section 68-c. it is plain that no other objections can be entertained by the state government. it is quite patent that the scheme published under section 68-c does not make any reference to an inter-state route or inter-state operators. the impugned clause in the note was added .....

Tag this Judgment!


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