Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Year: 2010 Page 1 of about 50 results (0.049 seconds)

Nov 03 2010 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Padmavathi Hatcheries (P) Limited,

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-03-2010

..... act allows the assessee certain deductions in respect of depreciation of tangible assets like buildings, machinery, plant or furniture. deduction in respect of depreciation of intangible assets like know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature is also permitted. section 43 contains definitions of the terms used in sections 28 to 41 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 2010 (HC)

D. Ramakrishna Rao S/O. Bangaraiah and ors. Vs. Lrr Hatcheries Pvt. Lt ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-19-2010

..... appellants, the company law board passed an equitable order and the same has been confirmed in appeal and therefore, the same cannot be interfered in exercise of jurisdiction under letters patent. to support of the contentions, the learned counsel placed strong reliance on s.d.n. wadiyar v. sri venkateswara real estate p. ltd. (1991) 72 comp. cas 211; p. ramkumar ..... a. gopal reddy, j.1. this intra-court appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent is directed against the orders of the learned single judge, dated 10.7.2001 dismissing the company appeal no. 3 of 1999.2. relevant facts shorn of details, which gave .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 2010 (HC)

Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani S/O. Sri C.V.B.G. Rama Rao and Vs. the Gover ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-05-2010

Reported in : 2010(2)ALT94

..... assignment of house sites rules, read with rules 10 and 11 thereof, which governed the assignments for free or on payment of full or concessional value of the land, are patently violated.xxvii) the sale of lands under the impugned g.os., is contrary to the a.p. board standing orders, which are held to be applicable to telangana area by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 2010 (HC)

A.Sridhar Lakshman Vs. M/S.Merbanc Financial Services Ltd. Rep. by Off ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-12-2010

..... contrary to the substantial 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, vide decision of the supreme court in oil and natural gas corpn. ltd. v. saw pipes .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 07 2010 (HC)

M/S.Lease Plan India Limited. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-07-2010

..... . it means "open to view, visible, evident, appears, appearing as real and true, conspicuous, manifest, obvious, seeming". a mistake which can be rectified under rule 50 is one which is patent, which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument or elaboration. (deva metal powders (p) ltd. v. ctt (2008) 2 scc 439). rectification of an order does not ..... and obvious cannot be similarly rectified. prima facie it may appear some-what strange that an order which was good and valid when it was made should be treated as patently invalid and wrong by virtue of the retrospective operation of the amendment act. but such a result is necessarily involved in the legal fiction about the retrospective operation of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 2010 (HC)

Kola Satya Rao Vs. Joint Collector and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-28-2010

Reported in : 2010(3)ALT281

..... passed several orders in purported exercise of his appellate jurisdiction. these orders were questioned in a writ petition, which was disposed of by a learned single judge. in the letters patent appeal filed by the writ petitioner against the directions given by the learned single judge, the division bench held that both the district collector and the revenue divisional officer have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 2010 (HC)

Sri Manganellore Veeraraghavan Vs. Sri S Chakrapani

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-31-2010

..... the power of a court or tribunal to recall its own order, which were found to be passed either in violation of principles of natural justice or suffers from a patent error causing manifest injustice to one of the parties. in my opinion, these two judgments do not have any relevance in dealing with the present case, because a returning officer ..... , has not hindered the process of election, but, it is a step to further the election by conducting poll. in this process, even if respondent no.3 has committed a patent illegality, the petitioner shall have to wait till the completion of the election before availing his remedy under article 243-o(b) read with section 233 of the act by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 2010 (HC)

L.Ramesh and Others Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-16-2010

..... grounds, on which, such action is proposed to be taken. if this fair procedure is not followed, such an action falls foul of the principles of natural justice and constitutes patent arbitrariness (see state of orissa v. dr. (miss) binapani devi and others1, maneka gandhi v. union of india2, swadeshi cotton mills v. union of india3 and rajesh kumar v. deputy .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 24 2010 (HC)

C. Venkata Sreeramakrishna Rao, S/O SuryanarayanA. Vs. J.L. Narasimha ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-24-2010

..... jurisdiction conferred on the court under that provision.under the circumstances, the suit filed on 03-01-2007 on the basis of the promissory note dated 03-11-2001 is patently barred by limitation and the order of rejection is not capable of being interfered with in this revision.accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs. 1 1971 aplj .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 2010 (HC)

Sri B.R.Meena and Others Vs. T.Bajrang and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-04-2010

..... a collateral issue or question which is not the subject matter of the main case, are, therefore, 'judgments' for the purpose of filing appeals under the letters patent; and, on the other hand, (i) routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment, and ..... court in midnapore peoples' co-op. bank ltd. case (4 supra) further held that the term 'judgment' occurring in clause 15 of the letters patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in section 2(9) of cpc and orders enumerated in order 43 rule 1 of cpc, ..... an adverse judgment affecting the rights of the contemnor or any party in place of the contemnor and thus is appealable under clasue 15 of the letters patent. further, the supreme court in j. s. parihar v. ganpat duggar3 while considering the maintainability of the appeal under section 19 of the contempt of ..... paragraph-120 of its judgment in shah babulal khimji case (2 supra), held that while no appeal is maintainable under clause 15 of the letters patent against an order or direction issued by the learned single judge for enforcing the original order passed in terms thereof, while discharging the contemnor, any ..... not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties, are not 'judgments' for purpose of filing appeals provided under the letters patent. therefore, we see no force in the contention that the order under appeal is not a judgment to maintain the appeal under clause 15 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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