Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 66 results (0.121 seconds)

Jan 03 2006 (HC)

Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Limited Vs. United Phosphorus Limited and ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-03-2006

Reported in : 2006(6)ALT515

..... air 1983 delhi 496. the learned counsel for the petitioner also placed strong reliance on bishwanath prasad radhey shyam v. hindustan metal industries : [1979]2scr757 to explain what a patent means. there cannot be any two opinions or any controversy relating to the same. the learned counsel for the petitioner also placed strong reliance on bengal waterproof limited v. bombay ..... appellate board issuing certain directions. no doubt there is some controversy between the parties that these directions relate to appointment in the context of trademarks and not in relation to patents. this question also need not be further gone into while disposing of the present interlocutory application for the reason that there is no controversy between the parties at least ..... trial or experiment only; or(b) by the government or by any person authorised by the government or by a government undertaking, in consequence of the applicant for the patent or any person from whom he derives title having communicated or disclosed the invention directly or indirectly to the government or person authorised as aforesaid or to the government undertaking ..... submissions at length were made by both the parties is the ground which had been specified in para-6 (k) which is as hereunder:the complete specification of the present patent application which was filed by the patentee-respondent no. 1 was already applied for manufacturing by the other company in india before central insecticide board, ministry of agriculture to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 2006 (HC)

4g Informatics (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-28-2006

Reported in : 2006(2)ALD418; 2006(3)ALT92

..... dealer, authorization letter from the manufacturer.b. in case the iris technology proposed to be deployed by the bidder are governed by patented ipr, the details of all relevant patents viz., patent number, patented date etc.c. a declaration from the manufacturer of the equipment in support of compatibility of the equipment with known iris technologies.d ..... dealer, authorization letter from the manufacturer.2.2 in case the iris technology proposed to be deployed by the bidder are governed by patented ipr, the details of all relevant patents viz., patent number, patented date etc.2.3 a declaration from the manufacturer/ technology provider for the support of proposed iris solution (sdk/api) and technology ..... they also indicated that iridian technologies does not appear to have any claim against the government of andhra pradesh, that iridian technologies' patents involved in this action are us patents, not indian patents and lg electronics had agreed to indemnify the government of andhra pradesh.15. it is further submitted that the dispute between iridian technologies ..... technologies developed for commercial utilization software technology for iris recognition. iris recognition is considered to be the most accurate biometric identifier. the holder of us and international patents behind iris recognition technologies, iridian offers unparalleled security for public-use applications such as simplified passenger travel, border control, national ids, restricted access and information access .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 2006 (HC)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Surya Prakash Reddy and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-05-2006

Reported in : I(2007)ACC361; 2006ACJ2287; 2006(4)ALD530

..... and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a learned single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the ..... restricted or regulated in relation to particular categories of matters by incorporating provisions in the corresponding enactments. conversely, restriction placed in one enactment on the applicability of the letters patent cannot be applied to those under the other enactments. if that were to have been so, the earliest of the amendments, in an enactment, which prohibited, expressly, ..... 15 of letters patent, can be excluded only by causing necessary amendments in the relevant provisions of the concerned enactments, and not through any other means. this aspect of the matter was further ..... appeal, against a judgment of a single judge, the right to entertain the appeal would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned excludes an appeal under the letters patent.(emphasis supplied).29. the underlined portions in the two paragraphs extracted above, clearly indicate that, in relation to the matters arising under special enactments, the appeal under clause .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 2006 (HC)

C.V. Padmanabham, Conservator of Forests, Forest Department and anr. V ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-03-2006

Reported in : 2007(3)ALD377

..... the direction given by the learned single judge for release of the machinery of respondent no. 1 is maintainable under clause 15 of the letters patent. 18. the next question which requires consideration is whether the learned single judge could entertain an application filed under section 151 of the code ..... merits is rendered by an interlocutory order of a learned single judge, whether an intra-court appeal is available under clause 15 of the letters patent?(iii) in a contempt proceeding initiated by a delinquent employee (against the enquiry officer as also the chairman and secretary in charge of the employer ..... the provisions of the 1967 act. in our opinion, such an adjudication amounts to judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent.13. the question whether an appeal is maintainable against an interim/ interlocutory order passed by the learned single judge in the proceedings instituted under ..... thought to the respective arguments and perused the record. we shall first consider the question whether an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent is maintainable against an interlocutory order like the one impugned in this appeal. a brief recapitulation of the facts would show that after less ..... that the order passed by the learned single judge cannot be treated as a judgment for the purposes of clause 15 of the letters patent because it does not result in determination of lis between the parties or their rights. learned counsel further argued that the source of power .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2006 (HC)

Vemuri Lakshmi Nageswara Rao and anr. Vs. Joint Collector and Addition ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-16-2006

Reported in : 2006(3)ALD317

..... that all the partners enjoy unity of ownership in the property. the property can be movable property or immovable property or intellectual property of the firm like goodwill, trade mark, patent, copyright etc. in all these cases, it would be breach of contract of partnership to deny a share to any partner on the ground that share in the assets is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 2006 (HC)

Peruboyina Satyanarayana and anr. Vs. State of A.P.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-10-2006

Reported in : 2006CriLJ3027

..... , that is power to secure ends of justice is attracted by the facts of this case. even after knowing that the evidence adduced by the prosecution against the accused was patently inadequate and unreliable, incapable of bringing home any conviction against the accused, the government persisted in filing this appeal making the accused, his wife and possibly also children suffer for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 2006 (HC)

Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. Nagisetti ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-25-2006

Reported in : 2007(1)ALD403; 2007(4)ALT842

..... observation made by the courts below, to the effect that an executing court cannot go beyond the scope of the decree. however, it is equally well settled that when a patent illegality, touching upon the jurisdiction, had crept into the decree, it can certainly be examined, at the stage of execution, also.7. in ghaziabad development authority's case (supra), the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 2006 (HC)

S. Nagender Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-06-2006

Reported in : 2006(4)ALD210; 2006(4)ARBLR75(AP)

..... and after screening at different levels, the termination of their services is not consistent with the public interests. we are, therefore, of the view that the high court committed a patent error of law in setting aside the order dated 23-7-1990 terminating the services of the respondent-law central bank of india v. c. bernard : (1991)1scc319 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 2006 (HC)

B. Nageswara Rao and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-13-2006

Reported in : 2006(4)ALD649

..... preventing the government from appointing 2087 panchayat secretaries on contract basis on a consolidated remuneration of rs. 2,000/- per month, and whether the tribunal committed any jurisdictional error or patent illegality by vacating interim order dated 31-5-2006.14. the question whether the petitioners are eligible to be considered for appointment as panchayat secretaries in accordance with the rules ..... , the tribunal can, at the time of final adjudication, give appropriate relief to the aggrieved person. if the selection or recruitment process is found to be tainted by arbitrariness or patent violation of the statutory provisions or the constitutional code of equality or it is found that a particular candidate has been selected due to extraneous reasons or the entire process .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 07 2006 (HC)

Rani Sundarammani Vs. Govt. of A.P., Revenue Department and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-07-2006

Reported in : 2006(5)ALD184; 2006(4)ALT374

..... the petitioner herein, the director of settlements, in his order dated 08-04-1976, held that the grant of patta by the settlement officer was based upon documents which were patently bogus and that the entire case bristled with shady deals and fabrications aimed at swallowing huge extents of government land. the director of settlements cancelled the pattas granted by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

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