Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Year: 2013 Page 1 of about 78 results (0.037 seconds)

Jul 10 2013 (HC)

Reliabilityengineering Industries and a Vs. Aesseal India Privatelimit ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-10-2013

..... act, which is not applicable to the present proceedings. the learned counsel for the petitioners.on the other hand, has contended that the petitioners do not have patent right or copyright in respect of their mechanical seals and drawings. but it is not their case of infringement of the confidential information and infringement or intellectual property ..... from carrying out any business of engaging in employment directly and indirectly which would cause them to infringe the confidential information, trade secrets and intellectual property rights including patents and designs of the petitioners.the one claimed in i.a.no.263 of 2012 is to restrain the defendants and their respective principal officers.directors.promoters.shareholders. ..... already existing. efforts are made to ensure that the benefit of such invention and discovery is not appropriated clandestinely by others.it is here, that the phenomenon of copyright, patent, licence, franchise, etc., become relevant. the relationship between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the defendants on the other has been furnished in brief, in preceding ..... with defendants 1 and 4 and from carrying out any business or engagement in employment that would result in infringement of confidential information, trade secretes, intellectual property rights, patents and designs of the plaintiffs. the plaintiffs pleaded that after they acquired the 9th defendant, together with the assets and intellectual properties and made the directors and employees .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 2013 (HC)

M/S.Durgawines, A4 Shop No.02, Nizamaba Vs. Govt. of A.P.Rep., by Its ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-07-2013

..... . 44(1).4th reissue, para 1474, pp. 906-07; bengal immunity co.ltd.v.state of bihar8; in re mayfair property company9; eastman photographic material company v. comptroller general of patents, designs and trade marks10; national insurance co.ltd.v.baljit kaur11).it is common knowledge that in open places, in and around several a4 retail shops, large scale consumption of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 2013 (TRI)

B. Venkateswara Reddy and Another Vs. M/S Kamineni Hospitals Rep. by I ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Oct-25-2013

..... supportive measures were continued and the treatment was modified accordingly to the need and on the 5th post operative day, inspite of intensive care treatment and other supportive measures, the patents condition deteriorated despite increasing doses of ionotropic support and at about 7.30 pm. the patient developed cardiac arrest, cardiopulmonary resuscitation was attempted but unfortunately the patient could not be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 2013 (HC)

Dr.L.Sudhakar Vs. the Medical Council of India and Two Oth

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-25-2013

..... . the inclusion of regulations 8.7 and 8.8 on the suggestions of the learned attorney general and with the approval of the supreme court was obviously to cure a patent defect or omission negativing the object and purpose of entrustment of statutory duties in this regard to the medical council of india and the supreme court pointed out that where .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2013 (HC)

M/S. Ibc Ltd.,represented by Its Ceo Mr. Vs. the A.P. Mineral Developm ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-04-2013

hon'ble sri justice c.v. nagarjuna reddy w.p.no.375 o 4. 1-2013 m/s. ibc ltd.,represented by its ceo mr. govindarajula ashok, chennai the a.p. mineral development corporation ltd.,represented by its vice-chairman and managing director, hyderabad head note: counsel for petitioner : sri v. ravinder rao counsel for respondent : advocate-general ?cases referred:1. air 195.s.c.

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 2013 (HC)

Kamisetti Krishna and 11 Other Vs. Kanchumarthi Venkata Ramanamma and ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-11-2013

..... such, no interference is called for in this revision petitions. he contends that the revisional jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution of india can be exercised only for correcting patent errors and evidence cannot be re-appreciated and came to a different conclusion. he also contends that all errors cannot be corrected under article 227 of the constitution of india ..... , interference under the article is not called for. ..... needless to record that there is total unanimity of judicial precedents on the score that error must be that of law and patently on record committed by the inferior tribunal so as to warrant intervention-it ought not to act as a court of appeal and there is no dissension or even a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 2013 (HC)

A. Yagna Naray Vs. Government of A.P., Represented by Its P

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-20-2013

..... (h) of the subordinate rules comes into play in respect of sfos., who did not clear the firs.and second tests within the period of probation. they contend that a patent illegality that crept into the final seniority list was noticed at a later point of time and the 2nd respondent was also convinced about it, and has taken the corrective .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 2013 (HC)

K. Anantha Rao S/O. K. Sriranga Rao Aged Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh R ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-12-2013

..... india and it has been made by the parliament in exercise of its power under article 254 of the constitution of india, we are of the view that this is patently incorrect statement, as the registration act, 1908 was not made by the parliament, the question of any assent to the same by the president of india does not and cannot .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2013 (HC)

A.Yadagiri Vs. the Chief Election Commissioner, Hyderab

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-29-2013

..... evidence as if it is the court of appeal, but, in the instant case, the learned single judge has not acted as the court of appeal. he has corrected the patent error committed by the tribunal as is evident from para 8 extracted above. since the tribunal has misread the evidence and ignored material evidence, the learned single judge of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 2013 (HC)

M/S. Rak Ceramics (India) Private Limite Vs. the Assistant Commissione ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-06-2013

..... and in the manufacturing unit or processing unit will not be eligible for input tax credit, as per rule 20(2)(q) of the rules, is totally absurd and is patently wrong conclusion arrived at in the factual matrix of each case. it is their contention further that the lpg cannot be covered by rule 20(2)(q) of the rules .....

Tag this Judgment!


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