Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Year: 2002 Page 7 of about 70 results (0.052 seconds)

Apr 23 2002 (HC)

Marepally Venkata Sree Nagesh Vs. State of A.P.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-23-2002

Reported in : 2002(1)ALD(Cri)905; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)52; 2002CriLJ3625

bilal nazki, j.1. this case is a unique case and first of its kind and with the development of science and technology unfortunately we may have to see many more cases of this nature in future. the accused-appellant is a scientist. he was awarded doctorate in bio-chemistry. he was married to one smt. marepally indira who died on 16-8-96 at 3.45pm at pramila kidney centre, secunderabad. the substance of the charge against the accused was that, on 3-7-96 in the bedroom of his house located at marwadi bazaar, tandur the accused with an intention to kill his wife inserted mercuric chloride crystals by mixing it with tamarind into her vagina. on the insertion of mercuric chloride into the vagina she developed severe burnings in her genitals and eventually she died in a nursing home. this was the case of the prosecution that, since the accused knew that by inserting mercuric chloride into the vagina the lady could eventually die he inserted mercuric chloride with an intention to kill her without leaving suspicion about his killing her. on the basis of these allegations charges were framed against the accused in the following manner by the trial court.'that you on the early hours of 3-7-96 in the bedroom of your house located at marwadi bazar, tandur, with an intention to commit murder of your wife smt. marepally indira, aged 27 years, inserted mercuric chloride crystals by mixing with tamarind into her vagina and thereby she developed severe burnings for which she died on 16-8-96 at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2002 (HC)

M. Nageswara Rao Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-04-2002

Reported in : III(2003)ACC569; 2004ACJ1554; 2003(3)ALD397; 2003(3)ALT603

b.s.a. swamy, j. 1. the owner of the vehicle is the appellant before this court. he filed this lpa assailing the order of the learned single judge in aao no. 1904/89 dated 13.11.1997 wherein the order of the tribunal apportioning the compensation payable by the owner and the insurance company to the third parties was reversed and the entire liability to pay the compensation was fastened on the insurer (i.e.) the owner of the vehicle. 2. the facts are not in dispute. the truck that was involved in the accident was insured with the 1st respondent under policy no. 4256106318 4256106318 on 28.12.1985 and the same is in force up to 27.12.1986. before expiry of the insurance policy the appellant herein issued a cheque on 28.12.1985 for a sum of rs. 3343/- for renewal of the insurance policy by one more year. but the cheque seemed to have been returned by the bank with an endorsement 'not arranged for' by its note dated 2.1.1986, which was marked ex.b2. it is the case of the respondent insurance company that by its letter dated 8.1.1986, the insurer was informed that the cheque was dishonoured. it is interesting to note the last para of the note, which reads as follows: 'please note that under the regulations we are not on risk in respect of the above policy in the absence of valid payment of premium. please remit us immediately the premium to enable us to assume risk subject to your confirmation that there has been no loss so far,' 3. it is also interesting to note on the top of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2002 (HC)

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Vankadaru Koteswaramma

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-16-2002

Reported in : 2003ACJ234; AIR2003AP153; 2002(3)ALT284

1. in this appeal, the defendant in 0,s. no, 16 of 1986 on the file of learned senior civil judge, nuzivid, challenges the judgment and decree dated 25-9-1989 passed therein.2. the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit claiming that her husband by name venkadaru panduranga rao, insured his life with the appellant-defendant herein by taking a policy for a sum of rs. 25,000.00through an authorised agent. the said panduranga rao nominated the plaintiff as nominee and died on 2-4-1982. when she demanded the payment of the amount from the appellant, they informed her that they repudiated the claim on the allegation that late panduranga rao during his lifetime, did not disclose the fact that he was suffering from diabetes, while submitting the proposals for the policy. the respondent-plaintiff claimed that the plea taken by the appellant was not sustainable and that they were under obligation to pay the amount covered by the policy.3. the appellant filed the written statement disputing the entitlement of the respondent. two principal contentions were raised. one was that there was no acceptance of the policy in the eye of law and as such, they are not under the obligation to pay the amount. the second contention was that the policyholder late panduranga rao has been suffering with diabetes and the same was suppressed by him, while submitting the proposals for the policy. taking shelter under section 45 of the insurance act. the appellant pleaded that they were entitled to repudiate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 2002 (HC)

Dilawer Firdous Vs. P.S. Rao

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-14-2002

Reported in : 2002(3)ALT621

orderg. rohini, j.1. this revision petition is filed by the defendant who suffered an ex parte decree assailing the order of the court below refusing to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree.2. the facts which are necessary for determination of the question involved in this revision petition, are as follows:the respondent herein, filed o.s. no. 3636 of 1994 on the file of the court of the iii assistant judge, city civil court at hyderabad, against the revision petitioner seeking a decree for recovery of a sum of rs. 45,270/- with interest at 18% p.a. the revision petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, filed written statement on 13-4-1995. after settlement of issues the suit was taken up for trial and on 11-3-1997 the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. the suit was adjourned to 21-3-1997 for the evidence of the defendant, since the defendant and her counsel were called absent, the evidence of the defendant was closed and the matter was adjourned to 31-3-1997. again on 31-3-1997 the defendant and her counsel were called absent and therefore, the suit was adjourned to 29-4-1997 on which day judgment was pronounced granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff. in pursuance of the said decree, the plaintiff filed e.p.no. 138 of 1997 and it appears that movable property of the defendant was attached. at that stage the defendant filed an application under order 9 rule 13 of cpc seeking to set aside the ex parte decree dated 29- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 2002 (HC)

G.R. Satyanarayana Vs. the Secretary to Government, General Administra ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-12-2002

Reported in : 2002AIHC4012; 2002(4)ALT120; 2002(2)LS161

orderg. rohini, j. 1. the plaintiff in o.s.no.1102 of 1995 on the file of the court of the v senior civil judge, city civil court, hyderabad, filed this civil revision petition being aggrieved by the order dated 3.10.2001 in i.a.no.1348 of 2001 condoning the delay of 379 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree obtained by him. 2. the relevant facts briefly are as follows:the revision petitioner filed o.s.no.1102 of 1995 against the government of andhra pradesh and the respondents 2 and 3 herein seeking recovery of rs.96,800/- by way of damages together with interest 18% p.a. the said suit was decreed ex parte on 28.7.2000 since the defendants failed to file written statements. thereafter on 6.9.2001 the state of andhra pradesh, the first defendant, filed an application under order 9 rule 13 of cpc to set aside the ex parte decree along with i.a.no.1348 of 2000 seeking to condone the delay of 379 days in filing the application under order 9 rule 13 of cpc.in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, the deputy secretary to the government stated that there are about 66 sections in the general administration department and each section is concerned with the work allotted to it and that there is no separate legal section to look after the legal affairs pertaining to general administration department, and consequently the file relating to the present case had to be transmitted from one section to the other resulting in delay in taking .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2002 (HC)

Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector (La), Somasila P ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-26-2002

Reported in : 2002(6)ALD110; 2002(6)ALT686

g. yethirajulu, j.1. these petitions viz., cmp no. 13903 of 2002 in a.s. (sr) no. 35071 of 2002, cmp no. 13907 of 2002 in as (sr) no.35238 of 2002, cmp no. 13908 of 2002 in as (sr) no.35063 of 2002, cmp no. 14487 of 2002 in as (sr) no. 35016 of 2002, cmp no. 15370 of 2002 in as (sr) no.35067 of 2002 are filed by the special deputy collector (land acquisition), somasila project, unit-iv, rajampet, cuddapah district seeking to condone the delay of 694, 715, 694, 584 and 707 days respectively in preferring the appeals against the orders and decrees of the senior civil judge, rajampet in la op nos.39, 48, 42, 141, and 50 of 1999 respectively dated 9-2-2000 enhancing the compensation awarded by the state.2. since all the appeals arise out of the same acquisition, these petitions for condonation of delay in filing the appeals are clubbed and this common order is passed.3. the brief facts of the cases leading to the filing of these appeals, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, are that a village by name gollapalli, hamlet of malinenipatnam, atloor mandal, cuddapah district was acquired for four shore submersion under the somasila project. the land acquisition officer passed award no.4/95-96 dated 2-3-1996 fixing the market value prevailing at the relevant date towards compensation. aggrieved by the market value fixed by the land acquisition officer the respondents sought for reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act and accordingly the matter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 2002 (HC)

A. Hari Prasanna and anr. Vs. Sri Venkateswara University and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-01-2002

Reported in : 2002(3)ALT219

orderp.s. narayana, j.1. the writ petitioners, an assistant professor and assistant director-lecturer, of sri venkateswara university, in short referred to as 'university' hereinafter, had questioned the proceedings dated 4-1-2002 passed in no. e. 11(6)/2002 on the file of 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings and the grounds raised in both these writ petitions being substantially the same, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order.2. in w.p.no. 1187/2002, the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in english vide proceedings dated 2-9-1992 and after completion of probation the 1st respondent-university had declared her probation to be satisfactory by proceedings dated 8-4-1999 with effect from 10-10-1994 and on 4-1-2002 the 1st respondent had transferred the petitioner from the 2nd respondent college to the 3rd respondent college and consequently proceedings dated 19-1-2002 had been issued by the 2nd respondent and hence the writ petition was filed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring and setting aside the proceedings dated 4-1-2002 passed in no. e.11(6)/2002 on the file of the 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings dated 19-1-2002 passed in no. e2/shes/2001 on the file of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to allow the petitioner to work as assistant professor in the department of english in the 2nd respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 2002 (HC)

Association of Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, Manufacturers, A.P. Vs. A.P. ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-21-2002

Reported in : 2002(2)ALD609; 2002(3)ALT593

orderv.v.s. rao, j.1. the petitioner, an association of manufacturers of medicines, drugs and pharmaceuticals, has filed this writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in prescribing the holding of who gmp (world health organization good manufacturing practices) certificate for the manufacturers to participate in the tenders as per tender notification, dated 10-10-2001 for supply of i.v. fluids and general drugs under rate contract 2001-03, as being arbitrary and irrational, and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to consider the case of the members of the petitioner-association and other licensees who manufacture medicines/drugs/ pharmaceuticals.2. while admitting the writ petition on 19-10-2001, this court passed an interim order in wpmp no.27836 of 2001 directing the first respondent to consider the tenders of the members of the petitioner-association without insisting that they should possess who gmp certificate, pending disposal of the writ petition. after receiving the notice, the first respondent has filed an application being wvmp no.20 of 2002 on28-12-2001 praying this court to vacate the interim order dated 19-10-2001. at the request of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned additional advocate-general appearing on behalf of the respondent, the main writ petition was heard, and is being disposed of finally by this order.factual background 3. all the members of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 2002 (HC)

Tera Software Ltd. Vs. Director of School Education, Hyderabad, A.P. a ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-19-2002

Reported in : 2002(2)ALD688

orderp.s. narayana, j.1. the writ petition is filed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of mandamus questioning the action of the 1st respondent in not rejecting the bid of the 3rd respondent under clause 8(a) read with clause 17(b) and clause 29 of the bid documents and further declare the action of the 1st respondent in treating the 3rd respondent as l1 responsive bidder, vide tender notice no. 242/scert/computer cell/d5/2001, dated 16-6-2001 and issue a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to consider the bid of the petitioner and treat the same as li and pass such other suitable orders.2. in wpmp no. 31416 of 2001 on 5-12-2001, interim direction not to finalise the bids for group-g tender notice until further orders had been granted and in view of the urgency involved as explained byall the counsel on record, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. the facts in brief, which had paved the way for the writ petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution of india, are as under:it is stated that the petitioner-company was incorporated under indian companies act initially as a private limited company for the purpose of developing software and imparting training in the field of hardware and the company was recognised as one of the pioneer industry in development of software field and was also appreciated by other foreign organisations and the company was converted into a limited .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 2002 (HC)

E. Venkataramana Naidu Vs. Mittamarri Alias Sogasani Bayya Reddy and o ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-01-2002

Reported in : 2002(6)ALD154; 2002(5)ALT338

p.s. narayana, j. 1. the 3rd plaintiff in os no. 543/97 on the file of principal district munsif, madanapalle - the 3rd respondent in as no. 62 of 1987 on the file of additional district judge, madanapalle is the appellant. respondents 6 and 7 shown in the present second appeal are the co-plaintiffs and the appellants in as no. 62/87 and the defendants in os no. 543/97 are the other respondents, in the present second appeal. the 1st defendant died during the pendency of the said appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record as per the orders in ia no. 30/89 dated 6-9-1989.2. for the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as 'plaintiffs'and 'defendants' as arrayed in the trial court.3. the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title relating to the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and also for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the wall put up at the place marked as 'd' in the plan and for costs of the suit. the trial court on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties after settling the relevant issues, having examined pw1 to pw3, dw1 and dw2 and marking ex.a1 to ex.a4 and ex.b1 to ex.b7, had arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of declaration of title as prayed for over the disputed pathway and .....

Tag this Judgment!


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