Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Year: 2007 Page 1 of about 60 results (0.036 seconds)

Jun 22 2007 (HC)

Canara Bank and A.P. State Financial Corporation Vs. Mopeds India Ltd. ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-22-2007

Reported in : [2007]139CompCas514(AP)

..... ] 35 comp cas 1 (sc), that the appeal lies to the same high court irrespective of the powers under the letters patent. sections 397 and 398 read with section 483 indicate that the appeal would lie in the same manner to the same court and naturally and logically an appeal from the ..... and also the provisions of section 483 of the act, was of the view that the appeal would lie to the high court irrespective of the powers under the letters patent. the court held in paragraph 8 as follows (page 325):in our opinion, this position is clear from the observation of this court in shankarlal aggarwala v. shankarlal poddar [1965 ..... or decision of the court in cases within its ordinary jurisdiction' are crucial and according to learned counsel for the respondents, these words make these appeals subject to the letters patent and subject to the ordinary jurisdiction of the high court.now in view of sections 460(6) and 483 of the act and rule 164 of the rules, the appeal ..... , and two other cases on march 18, 2004.7. it is now contended by the respondents that since this is a second appeal or at best an appeal under letters patent, therefore, it is barred. learned counsel for the appellants, however, submits that reference as an 'appeal' to the proceedings under rule 164 is a misnomer and as a matter of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 2007 (HC)

Ganaparthi Thirupathaiah Vs. District Panchayat Officer and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-09-2007

Reported in : 2007(5)ALD646; 2007(5)ALT366

..... a horizontal and narrow ruled book (single space between the lines), the register produced in the court is vertical with larger space between the rules (printed lines). apart from the patent discrepancy in form, we also noticed perceptible difference in their contents as well. in the resolution filed by the appellant the headings 's. no.', 'name of the tank', 'duration', 'upset .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 2007 (HC)

Manisha and Mulay (Jv) Vs. A. Krishna Reddy, Partner Incharge, Akr-coa ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-09-2007

Reported in : 2007(5)ALD481; 2007(5)ALT745; 2008(1)CTLJ59(AP)

..... can interfere in such matters if the action complained of is shown to be violative of the constitutional or mandatory statutory provisions or is vitiated due to mala fides or patent arbitrariness. while examining such issues, the court has to always bear in mind the larger public interest and exercise restraint if it is found that the annulment of the state .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 2007 (HC)

B. Subba Reddy Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Re ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-06-2007

Reported in : 2008(1)ALT113

..... by writ of certiorari. if it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. as to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the high court under article 227 of the constitution also, it has been held in surya dev rai (supra) that the ..... ordinarily be interfered with by the high court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse. the high court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record.17. the question ..... by writ of certiorari. if it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. as to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the high court under article 227 of the constitution also, it has been held in surya dev rai that the jurisdiction .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 2007 (HC)

L. Venkata Krishna Reddy (Died) and ors. Vs. M. Anjappa (Died) Per L.R ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-01-2007

Reported in : 2008(2)ALD379; 2008(1)ALT260

..... to initiate separate proceedings. the object is to avoid multiplicity of suits.10) the facts which warrant the discretion to be exercised differ from case to case. 22. what is patent from the matrix of the case is that the decree holder failed to deposit the balance sale consideration till 24-02-1995 and he did not apply to the court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 2007 (HC)

Madi Sri Vasishnavi D/O. Mr. Satyanarayana Vs. Dr. Ntr University of H ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-27-2007

Reported in : 2008(3)ALD8; 2008(3)ALT463

..... respondent to keep the seat allotted to the petitioner in abeyance and that no fee shall be accepted from the petitioner until clearance by the second respondent is also patently incompetent and misconceived. the memo bearing rc. no. 1907/2007/tr/vc.1 dated 28-07-2007 is accordingly quashed pro tanto. the writ petition is allowed. the first respondent ..... .11. on the analysis above, the conduct of the respondents in denying the petitioner the opportunity to pursue the m.b.b.s course in kurnool medical college, kurnool is patently arbitrary, illegal. it is so declared. the directive addressed by the second respondent to the first respondent by the memo dated 28-07-2007 insofar as it directs the first ..... educational institution such as the first respondent to keep the seat in abeyance. the directive of the second respondent as contained in the memo dated 28-07-2007 is therefore patently incompetent and the product of a fertile imagination without any substrate in lawful authority. it is tragic that the first respondent never enquired as to the authority of the second .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 2007 (HC)

K. Ganna Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-06-2007

Reported in : 2008(3)ALD178; 2008(4)ALT340

..... 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 (if) 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!

Jan 19 2007 (HC)

Y. Jyothirmoy and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-19-2007

Reported in : 2007(2)ALD533; 2007(2)ALT410

..... persons raising illegal constructions as parties.(ix) feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge, sri m.v. srinivas filed an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent, which was registered as writ appeal no. 2130 of 2005. while issuing notice of the appeal on 8-11-2005, the division bench accepted the appellant's prayer for impleadment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 25 2007 (HC)

Kurapati Maria Das Vs. Dr. Ambedker Seva Samajam and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-25-2007

Reported in : AIR2007AP330; 2007(6)ALD334; 2007(5)ALT347

..... whom a writ of quo warranto was issued by the learned single judge, vide his order dated 21.12.2006, has filed this appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent.2. for deciding the appeal, we may briefly notice the facts:the government of andhra pradesh (respondent no. 11 herein) issued notification dated 18.08.2005 whereby the office of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 31 2007 (HC)

Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies and Allied Chemicals Limited Vs. State of An ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-31-2007

Reported in : (2008)13VST15(AP)

..... :46. applying the above tests/parameters, whenever a law is impugned as violative of article 301 of the constitution, the court has to see whether the impugned enactment facially or patently indicates quantifiable data on the basis of which the compensatory tax is sought to be levied. the act must facially indicate the benefit which is quantifiable or measurable. it must .....

Tag this Judgment!


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