Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 70 results (0.037 seconds)

Nov 18 2002 (HC)

Smt. A. Santhi Kumari, I.A.S., Secretary, A.P. Social Welfare Resident ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-18-2002

Reported in : 2003(2)ALD460; 2002(6)ALT326; 2003CriLJ1596

..... . the judgment made in w.a. no. 193 of 2000 by the division bench is in exercise of the jurisdiction under clause 15 of the letters patent act, which is capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. it is not a case of rejection of writ appeal ..... noticed that the writ appellate court disposed of the appeal preferred by the appellant herein in exercise of its jurisdiction under clause 15 of the letters patent act after full hearing of both the parties to the appeal and the writ appeal itself has been disposed of holding that the points raised and ..... appealed against would not make any difference. once the appellate court applies its mind to the order put in issue before it and exercises its letters patent jurisdiction after issue of notice and disposes of the appeal after full hearing in presence of both the parties such order would be an appellate order ..... the only final judgment. 39. it is thus clear that once an appeal is entertained in exercise of the jurisdiction under clause 15 of the letters patent act the order impugned before the division bench becomes an order appealed against. any order passed thereafter would be an appellate order and would undoubtedly attract ..... , modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it.' 37. it is no doubt true that an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent act against the judgment of a learned single judge before a division bench cannot be equated to that of a decree or order passed by an inferior .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 2002 (HC)

B.F. Pushpaleela Devi Vs. State of A.P., Rep. by Its Secretary, Educat ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-07-2002

Reported in : 2002(5)ALD1; 2002(5)ALT103

..... officer, salem housing unit, salem, 1996(2) law weekly 117 rendered by k.a. swami, cj and one of us - dr. justice ar. lakshamanan,. in that case a letters patent appeal was preferred against the order passed by the learned single judge in a contempt application. the learned single has recorded a categorical finding that the complainant-appellant had failed ..... para 28 held as follows: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 first appellate jurisdiction under section ..... appeal against orders falling under various clauses of order 43, rule 1 to a larger bench of the high court without at all disturbing, interfering with or overriding the letters patent jurisdiction. 23. referring to the decision in shankarlal aggarwal vs. shankarlal proddar, : [1964]1scr717 it was further observed at para 33:there is yet another aspect of the matter ..... m. srinivas vs . jawaharlal nehru techoological unviersity, hyderabad, : 1991(3)alt1 (fb). in this case, the full bench held that writ appeal is maintainable under clause 15 of the letters patent appeal before this bench. the next judgment on the issue is reported in executive officer, group temples, guntur vs . dasaratha rama rao, : 1999(4)ald164 (db). the judgment in this .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 16 2002 (HC)

Government of A.P. and anr. Vs. Sri Venkateswara Construction Co., Kak ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : May-16-2002

Reported in : 2002(5)ALD142

..... unreasoned award, courts cannot interfere with such awards once the dispute is an arbitrable one and the arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide the same. a patent lack of jurisdiction initiates the award buta latent lack of jurisdiction (error within the jurisdiction) cannot be a ground for interference.70. construing the ..... error. the courts are not to investigate beyond the award of the arbitrators and the documents actually incorporated therein and therefore, when there would be no patent error on the face of the award, it would be open for the court to go into the proceedings of the award. (see : c ..... courts are not to investigate beyond the award of the arbitrators and the documents actually incorporated therein and, therefore, when there would be no patent error on the face of the award, it would not be open for the court to go into the proceedings of the award.in the ..... no merit in the contention that computation of lump sum damage in the absence of any material showing actual loss suffered by the contractor is patently unjust and improper warranting interference by the supreme court. it is not necessary to indicate in the award computation made for various heads and ..... that the findings made by the arbitrators were without any basis whatsoever and were not referable to documents relied upon and such findings were so patently unjust or perverse that no reasonable man could have arrived at such findings. hence, on the score of alleged misreading, misconstructive, mis-appreciation of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 2002 (HC)

A. Aruna and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-01-2002

Reported in : 2002(6)ALD548; 2003(2)ALT770

..... compensatory or not and the test is to enquire whether the trades people are having the use of certain facilities for the better conduct of their business and paying not patently much more than what is required for providing the facilities. the majority has emphasised that it would be impossible to judge the compensatory nature of a tax by a meticulous .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 2002 (HC)

Patakamuru Damodar Prasad and anr. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh an ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-09-2002

Reported in : 2002(6)ALD67; 2003(1)ALT407

..... rao, 1984 (2) alt 386, wherein it was observed:where no innocent third party interests have crept in and where the nature of fraud or misrepresentation is so glaring and patent crying out for judicial correction and where the assignee himself was a privy to the fraud played on the state, it becomes the duty of the authority to take action .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 2002 (HC)

Thotakura Ravindra Babu and anr. Vs. Thotakura Seshagiri Rao

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-25-2002

Reported in : 2002(2)ALD521

..... the said decision was later considered by the supreme court in the decision (supra) and it was categorically held that no further appeal under letters patent lie from the matter arising out of order 43, rule 1 cpc. therefore, when the earlier decision of the supreme court (supra) is clarified ..... provides that no further appeal lies, the present lpas are not maintainable. in support of his contention that the provisions of clause 15 of letters patent is subject to other legislations, as provided under clause 44, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the supreme court in national sewing thread ..... when there is a specific embargo under sub-section (2) of section 104 of cpc, the present lpas are not maintainable even though the letters patent is a special enactment. elaborating his submissions, learned counsel submitted that the ratio laid down by the four judge bench of the supreme court in ..... )1scc49 , submitting that the supreme court in these two decisions has not elaborately discussed the implications arising out of order 43 rule 1 has the letters patent clauses and as such, the earlier four judges decision of the supreme court in union of india's case (supra) shall prevail over these two decisions ..... 302, the embargo as provided under sub-section (2) of section 104 of cpc is not an obstacle for filing an appeal, under the letters patent provisions against the orders passed by the learned single judge in the proceedings under order 43, rule 1 or order 47, rule 1 cpc. learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2002 (HC)

Pradeep Kumar Vs. Mahaveer Pershad and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-26-2002

Reported in : AIR2003AP107; 2002(6)ALT360

..... does not vitiate deed. the maxim demonstratio falsa non nocetapplies.' 24. as aforediscussed. the language used in ex. b.3 trust deed is quite intelligible and there is absolutely no patent ambiguity and applies accurately to the existing facts. the document specifically includes the three storeyed building, two shops and the land appurtenant to it. the qualifying words further added in ..... defective so as to render the meaning unintelligible or where the language though intelligible creates an obvious uncertainty of the meaning, extrinsic evidence is wholly inadmissible because it is a patent ambiguity; (2) where the language used is quite plain and intelligible but some difficulty arises in applying them to existing facts, for example, when a description is partly correct and ..... in order to show the sense in which the parties used the language employed, applies to a modern as well as to an ancient instrument, and where the ambiguity is patent as well as where it is latent.' (emphasis is mine) 15. the learned counsel relies upon another judgment of the orissa high court in basudev das v. somenath das, : air1964ori63 ..... deed or instrument, but there is some collateral matter out of the deed that breedeth the ambiguity.' (bacon's law tracts, reg. pages 23. 99). but whether the ambiguity is patent or latent the present case seems to me to be wholly covered by the provisions of section 97 of the indian evidence act. 1872. extrinsic evidence was, therefore, rightly admitted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 2002 (HC)

S. Shiva Raja Reddy and ors. Vs. S. Rahgu Raj Reddy and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-01-2002

Reported in : 2002(5)ALD181; 2002(4)ALT594

..... there is nothing either expressly or by necessary implication in order to hold that the newly inserted provision affects even the appeals that were already admitted.54. all the letters patent appeals presented or filed before 1-7-2002 are maintainable whether they have been admitted or not. those appeals are excluded from the operation of the newly inserted provision.55 ..... section 100-a would not extend to and be applicable even to such of those letters patent appeals which are already admitted and pending adjudication.35. in our considered opinion, the retrospective operation of section 100-a is limited to the extent of taking away the right ..... is therefore safe to conclude that the expression 'no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such single judge' is not applicable to such of those letters patent appeals which have already been subjected to threshold judicial scrutiny by this court for their admission and which are pending final adjudication. in our considered opinion, the retrospective operation of ..... upon the parties.15. sri kodanda ram murihy, learned amicus curiae not only supported the submissions made by sri challa seetaramaiah but further contended that even all the pending letters patent appeals as on 1-7-2002 are not maintainable in view of the retrospective operation of section 100-a.16. having given our anxious consideration to these rival contentions, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 2002 (HC)

Vallapareddy Sumitra Reddy and anr. Vs. Kasireddy Laxminarayana Reddy ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-22-2002

Reported in : 2002(6)ALD642; 2002(6)ALT645

ramesh madhav bapat, j. 1. this letters patent appeal arises out of a suit o.s. no. 1601 of 1983, which was decided by the ii additional judge, city civil court, hyderabad, which was filed by the first .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 2002 (HC)

Kothapalli Sreeramulu and Company and ors. Vs. Krishna Gur and Khandas ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-05-2002

Reported in : 2003(3)ALD319; 2003(3)ALT360

..... .8.1993 affirmed the judgment and decree granted by the trial court and accordingly dismissed both the appeal and cross-objections. aggrieved by the same the defendants preferred the letters patent appeal. 13. we have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. the learned counsel for the appellants sri p. v.r ..... , which was disallowed partly by the trial court, the plaintiff filed cross-objections. a learned single judge dismissed both the appeal as well as the cross-objections. hence the letters patent appeal by the defendants. 3. the parties shall be referred to, hereinafter, as the plaintiff and the defendants for the sake of convenience. 4. the case of the plaintiff as ..... rent as well as the amounts payable towards the repairs effected by the plaintiff. hence, we confirm the decree in favour of the plaintiff. 38. in the result, the letters patent appeal is dismissed. however, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ..... g. rohini, j. 1. this letters patent appeal is preferred against the judgmentdated 24.8.1993 in a.s. no. 633 of 1982, whereunder the learned single judge affirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.3.1982 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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