Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 58 results (0.036 seconds)

Oct 21 2005 (HC)

Prathipati Bhagyamma and ors. Vs. Election Officer, Muppalla Primary A ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-21-2005

Reported in : 2005(6)ALD850

..... done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election.27. some of the learned counsel have strenuously urged that when there is patent illegality in violation of act and rules, writ petition is not barred. i am afraid, the submission cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the supreme court in ..... settled that when once an election process has begun, this court should not ordinarily interfere in the said election process. but when once the rejection order of a candidate is patently bad, it is not desirable for this court to drive such a person to an election tribunal. if there are any disputed facts and those disputed facts have to be ..... nominations filed by their respective clients or acceptance of the nominations of the contesting respondents is illegal. they would urge that when the rejection of the nomination is vitiated by patent illegality, the exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india is not barred.15. learned government pleader for co-operative department sri seshagiri rao submits that when .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2005 (HC)

H.A. Mohan Kumar and ors. Vs. P. Muralidhar and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-04-2005

Reported in : 2005(5)ALD552

..... cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the court will not be recognised except 'where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility'. chandra kanta v. sheikh habib, : [1975]3scr933 .9. now, besides the fact that most of the legal material ..... to the rules and cannot be lightly entertained. a review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error had crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. in the inmitable slight of expression, he stated that 'mere repetition through different counsel of old and overruled .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 2005 (HC)

P.R. Periakaruppan Vs. Chola Chits and Finance (P) Ltd.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-06-2005

Reported in : AIR2005AP471; 2005(5)ALT345

..... the registrar of chits, chittoor, and the other officers referred to above. the plaintiff submits that those two statements made by the defendant referred to in quotations above, are defamatory, patently false on the face of them. the said statements are clearly understandable by right thinking of reasonable minded persons as referring to plaintiff's activities in the chit transaction and ..... the plaintiff's company for the last about 10 years, he know their work, honesty, efficiency and working of the said company and with all these, the defendant made a patently defamatory statement by making false allegations and by making publish by sending the authorities, but in their turn they discharged their duties by taking the files relating to the chit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2005 (HC)

Mudiki Bhimesh Nanda Vs. Tirupathi Urban Development Authority and ors ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-25-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)ALD792; 2005(5)ALT41

..... could be characterized as vitiated by 'error apparent'. a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. (see thungabhadra industries v. govt. of a.p., : [1964]5scr174 )13. in meera bhanja v. nirmala kumari chaudhary, : air1995sc455 , the supreme court held that an error apparent on the ..... held that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case and the finality of the judgment will be reconsidered only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept into by judicial fallibility. a judgment based on factual foundation is not open to review merely because some alternative situations were not presented .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2005 (HC)

L. Nagi Reddy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-21-2005

Reported in : 2005(6)ALT325; 2005(3)ARBLR607(AP)

..... or what would be injurious or harmful to the public good or public interest has varied from time to time. however, the award, which is, on the face of it, patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public interest. such award/ judgment/decision is likely to adversely affect the administration of justice'.33. from the abovementioned ..... challenged there is no necessity of giving a narrower meaning to the term 'public police of india'. on the contrary, wider meaning is required to be given so that the 'patently illegal award' passed by the arbitral tribunal could be set aside. if narrow meaning as contended by the learned senior counsel mr. dave is given, some of the provisions of ..... . if the arbitral tribunal has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under the act, it would mean that it has acted beyond its jurisdiction and thereby the award would be patently illegal which could be set aside under section 34.14. result is - if the award is contrary to the substantive provisions of law or the provisions of the act or ..... against the terms of the contract, it would be patently illegal, which could be interfered under section 34. however, such failure of procedure should be patent affecting the rights of the parties.15. the next clause which requires interpretation is cl. (ii) of sub-section (2)(b) of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 2005 (HC)

S. Singa Reddy (Died) and ors. Vs. K. Ramachandra Reddy

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-27-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)ALD760

..... within the mischief of the ratio adumbrated in section 115 of the code. there has been a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by the court below to a patent misconception of the position and this obliges me to interfere in revision. in r. narasimhaiah v. sakammanamma, 2001 (1) aihc 88 (kar.), it was held that rejection of an application .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 30 2005 (HC)

Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Dr. Shiv K. Kumar

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-30-2005

Reported in : AIR2006AP198; 2006(3)ALD216; 2006(3)ALT319; 2006(33)PTC456(NULL)

..... the fraud to which he was a party and in that sense the court would be allowed to be used as an instrument of fraud, and that is clearly and patently inconsistent with public interest.23. that was a case where the first respondent ramalinga murthi filed the suit for declaration of his title in respect of the suit schedule mentioned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 2005 (HC)

B. Archana Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P., Rep. by Its Secretary, La ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-07-2005

Reported in : 2005(6)ALD582; 2005(6)ALT364

..... accepted principle that legislature makes law and court declares what the law is.189. any classification - it is trite to say so; should also be reasonable and must not be patently arbitrary. it must be rationale and must be based on some qualities or characters which are to be found in all groups together and not in others, who are left ..... in the state of andhra pradesh that cannot be ignored. the controversy is not between reservationists or non-reservationists.125. as long as social disparities among groups of people are patent and one class of citizens in spite of best efforts cannot effectively avail 'equality of opportunity' due to social and economic handicaps, the policy of affirmative action must receive the ..... connection to the object sought to be achieved. article 14 does not insist upon classification, which is scientifically perfect or logically complete. a classification would be justified unless it is patently arbitrary. if there is equality and uniformity in each group, the law will not become discriminatory, though due to some fortuitous circumstances arising out of peculiar situation some included in ..... of 1970 and w.p.nos. 221 and 543 of 1971. the writ petitions were dismissed by a learned single judge of this court on 13-05-1971. in letters patent appeal, however, the division bench struck down reservation order in o. venkateswara rao v. state of andhra pradesh 1971 a.p. high court notes 210. the state carried the matter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 2005 (HC)

Md. Abdul Azeez Asad and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-21-2005

Reported in : AIR2005AP389; 2005(3)ALD455; 2005(3)ALT252

..... the degree and diploma, clinical and non-clinical -distinct, dis-similar and separate post-graduate medical courses of study, is valid.62. the above underlying premise of the state is patently fallacious and ignores the enacting history of article 371-d, the social, economic and political compulsions that have given birth to this provision and the signals that emanate from the ..... practical and training curricula of each of these courses is insular. the clubbing of such discreet and insular post-graduate medical courses, including degree and diploma courses, is not merely patently irrational and arbitrary, but is also subversive of the text and structure of the presidential order, is the substratum of the petitioners' challenge.56. in defence to this challenge, the ..... articles 14 and 15 of the constitution and that the rules framed by the state government to regulate the admissions procedure, subvert the equality injunctions of the constitution and are patently irrational, arbitrary and inoperable. the petitioners seek invalidation of the rules issued by the state government in no. 44, health, medical and family welfare (e-2) department .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 2005 (HC)

M. Babu Rao and ors. Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies/Of ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-05-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)ALD582; 2005(4)ALT327; [2005]126CompCas708(AP); [2005]63SCL339(AP)

..... the registrar.(b) any award or order passed, certificate issued or an order in execution proceedings, by the registrar on any claim or application of a co-operative bank, is patently and inherently without jurisdiction, null, void and inoperative.(j) during the pendency of these writ petitions, by virtue of various court orders certain amounts have been deposited by some of ..... registrar of such a claim other than under section 61 or 71 of the 1964 act, or an award passed, a certificate issued or execution proceedings initiated or processed, is patently devoid of jurisdiction and any award or certificate thus issued is non est and addition to the above specific positions, on behalf of the petitioners it is generally ..... law of forbidden legislative field may be on the point of subject matter or the method of enacting the law. the transgression may be patent, manifest or direct or disguised or covert. when the transgression is not patent the legislation is termed a colourable legislation. a colourable legislation means that though apparently the legislature enacted the statute purporting to act within the .....

Tag this Judgment!

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