Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Year: 2012 Page 7 of about 93 results (0.053 seconds)

Dec 20 2012 (HC)

M/S. Shine Shanthisoftware Technologies Vs. the District Collector, Ea ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-20-2012

..... conditions. in the light of the above discussed settled legal position, i am of the opinion that the selection of respondent no.3 by respondent no.2 is vitiated by patent arbitrariness in the decision making process undertaken by the latter and the same is, accordingly, declared as illegal. the action of respondent no.2 in selecting respondent no.3 is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 2012 (HC)

M/S. Trimex Industries Limited,represent Vs. the A.P. Mineral Developm ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-09-2012

hon'ble sri justice c.v. nagarjuna reddy w.p.no.26321; 26345 o 09. 10-2012 m/s. trimex industries limited,represented by its manager (accounts) c.s. mallikarjuna rao, alwarpet, chennai the a.p. mineral development corporation ltd., represented by its chairman-cum- managing director, khairtabad, hyderabad counsel for petitioner : sri vedula srinivas counsel for respondent : sri v. subrahmanyam, standing counsel head note: ?cases referred:1. (2004) 3 scc 55.2. air 197.s.c.

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 2012 (HC)

Sri Gandreddi Chinan Atchi Babu and Anot Vs. the District Collector, V ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-27-2012

..... galore where on mere communication addressed by the revenue authorities, the registering authorities have not even been receiving the documents. this, in the considered opinion of this court, is a patently wrong approach on the part of the registering authorities. as noted above, the communication by the revenue authorities can, at best, be treated as the claim of the government regarding .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 2012 (HC)

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Vs. Doppalapudi Sujatha and O ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-19-2012

..... subject to ex.b-1 copy of section 161 cr.p.c statement of the eyewitness. viewed in either angle, the negligence of the driver of the offending lorry is patent. the death of the scooterist and the pillion-rider consequently was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. i therefore have no hesitation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2012 (HC)

Bmw India Private Limited (A1), Building Vs. the State of A.P., Rep., ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-22-2012

..... of the case. where a purchaser has himself seen and examined the subject of his purchase, he will not be entitled afterwards to repudiate the transaction on the ground of patent fault, unless he can prove fraud on the part of the seller; the purchaser, being bound to satisfy himself, in the ordinary case, of the quality of the subject bought .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 28 2012 (HC)

Rage Mounika Vs. the Collector and District Magistrate,ysr

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-28-2012

..... not detained, he would act in a prejudicial manner? at the point of time when an order of detention is going to be served on a person, it must be patent that the said person would act prejudicially if he is not detained and that is a consideration which would be absent when the authority is dealing with a person already .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 2012 (HC)

Madhura Krishnarjuna Rao Vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Khamm

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-17-2012

..... tahsildar of the mandal. unfortunately, this is the method of functioning in the office of the district collector, and the result cannot be different. the impugned order was passed in patent violation of principles of natural justice. the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. the 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders, duly taking into .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 2012 (HC)

The Karimnagar Cooperative Urban Bank Li Vs. B.Hanumanlu and Others.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-02-2012

..... over the officials of the department, is evident from the fact that he could manage favourable orders from various authorities by keeping the petitioner under dark. on account of the patently illegal order passed by the 4th respondent on 09.11.2000, the 3rd respondent was left with no alternative except to drop the proceedings under section 60 of the act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 2012 (TRI)

Smt V. Madhavi Vs. Dr.K.Thirupal Reddy and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Dec-21-2012

..... record do not mention the name of the duty doctor who transfused blood. o) medical records are incomplete, the notings are tampered, intake and output chart clearly show that the patent was in a state of anuria (no urine output) due to renal failure consequent to blood transfusion. no specialist doctor was summoned to attend to the patient. p) dr. s .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2012 (TRI)

Chaitanya Medical Centre Rep. by Its Director and Others Vs. D. Sriniv ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Apr-16-2012

..... earlier report dated 19.6.2008 could not confirm anything and not only because of their revised opinion but also based on the expert opinion report of srl ranbaxy, the ??patent has been advised further assessment ? . thus, the opposite parties tacitly admitted that their 1st report dated 19.6.2008 was wrong. but very peculiarly, in practice, their revised report dated .....

Tag this Judgment!


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