Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Year: 2004 Page 3 of about 62 results (0.064 seconds)

Dec 28 2004 (HC)

Challappli Ravi and ors. Vs. B. Krupanandam, Ias, Industries and Comme ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-28-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)ALD356

..... bona fide one, since the subsequent events even after admission of the contempt case disclose the continuous disobedience to the order of the court. the transgression is so serious and patent, leaves us with no option except to punish the respondents for contempt of court. that an idea must not be harboured that a person who has wilfully committed a breach .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2004 (HC)

Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. Vs. Parna Venkaiah Naidu and anr ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-03-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)ALD105; 2004(2)ALT259

..... persons being nayee brahmins and their descendants to whom pattas were granted under the provisions of the inams abolition act. according to the petitioners, the recitals in the document are patently dishonest. it wrongly declared that the consideration for the sale has been paid on 12.1.1987 i.e., nearly seven years earlier and possession had been handed over to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 2004 (HC)

Mohd. ZaheeruddIn and ors. Vs. Mohd. YousufuddIn Mansoor and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-16-2004

Reported in : 2004(3)ALD534; 2004(2)ALT632

..... is the first defendant herein has already filed i.a. no. 213 of 2002 before this hon'ble court. the dissolution deed dated 14-11-1969 referred to herein is patently a false document created for obtaining the registration certificate from registrar of trade marks, mumbai. the partnership deed dated 3-4-1992 referred to in this para of the plaint .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 2004 (HC)

Nallolla Rajaiah S/O. Late N. Balaram, Vs. Praga Tools Officers Coop. ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-26-2004

Reported in : 2004(5)ALD238; 2004(6)ALT582

..... reasoning. where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent.(7) the power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the high ..... when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.(6) a patent error is an error which is self- evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 2004 (HC)

The Director, Intermediate Education, Government of A.P. Vs. Rama Prab ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-30-2004

Reported in : 2004(4)ALT41

..... . a.santhi kumari's case (4 supra), division bench of this court considering the provisions under section 12 of the contempt of courts act and clause 15 of the letters patent, held that an order passed in writ petition merges with the order in writ appeal and therefore, the contempt petition is not maintainable. 16. having regard to the aforesaid principles .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 2004 (HC)

The Superintendent Engineer (R and B) Vs. Dega Ramalinga Reddy and anr ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-24-2004

Reported in : 2004(6)ALD822; 2005(1)ARBLR486(AP)

..... court held,'we are of the view that unless the error of law sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the instant case is patent on the face of the award, neither the high court nor this court can interfere with the award.'9. in state of rajasthan v. puri construction co. ltd., and another .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2004 (HC)

Bandari Pushpamma Vs. Bandari Krishna and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-05-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)ALD712

..... legal representatives are before this court. therefore, it cannot be said that the suit is liable to be dismissed for nonjoinder of the necessary party now.23. accordingly, this letters patent appeal is, allowed and the order of the learned single judge dated 5-8-1999 in review c.m.p. no. 16820 of 1999 in a.s. no. 2619 of ..... dismissed, there was no necessity for the respondents-defendants to file cross-objections and they are permitted under law to raise the question of law of limitation in this letter patent appeal, without filing any cross-objections. it is contended that in fact the respondents-defendants raised the question of limitation in the memorandum of grounds of appeal before the learned ..... though she was alive and accordingly dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff by allowing the appeal.7. questioning the said orders of the learned single judge, present letter patent appeal is filed by the plaintiff contending that in the written statement, no specific plea was raised that the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties ..... e. dharma rao, j.1. this letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 5-8-1999 passed by a learned single judge of this court in review c.m.p. no. 16820 of 1998 in a. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 04 2004 (HC)

Fathima Bee (Died) by Lrs. Vs. S. Ibraheem Sab (Died) by Lrs.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-04-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)ALD823; 2005(1)ALT649

..... of bringing the legal representatives on record, particularly when the proceedings under letters patent appeals are also governed by the provisions of c.p.c. further, the purport of rule 9 of order 22 was not considered. however, since a.s. no. 72 of ..... to whether such a distinction can be maintained at all, as long as the proceedings, be it, the appeals under the provisions of c.p.c., or those under letters patent, arise out of the suits. except stating that both the kinds of appeals are different; the bench did not point out the basis for such a distinction, in the context ..... implead the legal representatives and then dispose of the matter according to law.para-9: we may observe that we cannot follow the same procedure in this case. the letters patent appeal does not arise out of the second appeal, but, it is an appeal against the judgment of the learned single judge. further, as we are of the view that ..... distinction was made between the proceedings arising out of appeal under section 96 and second appeal under section 100 c.p.c, on the one hand, and those under letters patent. the bench did not express any doubt as to the permissibility of such a course of action, in relation to the appeals and second appeals. a reading of the following .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 2004 (HC)

Mohd. NizamuddIn Vs. Bhagwandas Asawa (Died) by Lrs.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-10-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)ALD518; 2004(2)ALT443

..... of the high court concluded that keeping in view the social purpose sought to be achieved by the welfare legislation of rent control law, the trial court had committed a patent error in directing eviction of the tenant. the high court did not go into the question of comparative hardship and allowed the revision petition and directed eviction petition to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 2004 (HC)

In Re: Hyderabad Industries Limited

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-21-2004

Reported in : 2004(4)ALD842; 2004(4)ALT757; [2005]123CompCas458(AP); [2004]55SCL1(AP)

b. sudershan reddy, j 1.the petitioner in company petition no. 169 of 2003 is the appellant in this appeal preferred under clause 15 of the letters patent and section 483 of the companies act, 1956 (for short 'the act') against the order dated 27.4.2004 of the learned company judge dismissing the application filed under section .....

Tag this Judgment!

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