Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(6)ALT515
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Y.J. Trivedi, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Naiar, Counsel representing the respondent.2. Sri Y.J. Trivedi, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would maintain that the Original Petition is filed by Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Limited, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, praying for revocation of the patent. The learned Counsel also would maintain that Section 107 of the Patents Act, 1970, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience, deals with suits for infringement of patents. The Counsel also would maintain that the restraint order which is passed in relation to the breach of earmark in C.S. No. 25-A/2004 by the District Court, Indore is totally for a different purpose and the scope and the ambit of the said suit also being different, the said order would not come in the way of granting suspension as prayed for in the present applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994CriLJ3830
P.L.N. Sarma, J.1. This matter has been placed before us on Office note as to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal sought to be filed by the appellants. 2. The relevant facts are as follows : Appellants filed Writ Petition No. 16523 of 1991 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the settlement arrived at dated 26-10-1991 entered into by the respondents with the Union under S. 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Officer-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court on 20-4-1992 in the following terms : 'In view of the above, there will be a direction that the respondents shall consider the claims of the petitioners for appointment as Helpers in terms of the Settlement dated 26-10-1991 which the respondents had entered into with the Trade Union representing the petitioners. I make it absolutely clear that I am not pronouncing up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : I(2007)ACC361; 2006ACJ2287; 2006(4)ALD530
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. In furtherance of order dated 20-8-2004 passed by the Full Bench, LPA (SR) No. 87377 of 2003 has been placed before the Larger Bench for determination of the following question of law:Whether, after insertion of amended Section 100A in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') by Act No. 22 of 2002, Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment rendered by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a special enactment 2. The background in which the aforementioned question has been referred to the Larger Bench deserves to be noticed first.3. By an award dated 1-10-1996, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi directed M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited to pay compensation of Rs. 90,000/-with interest @ 12% per annum to Sri 5. Surya Prakash Reddy in lieu of the death of his wife Rukmini caused in an accident which took place on 31-5-1991 on Tirupathi - Chandragiri Road. The appeal preferred by M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD460; 2002(6)ALT326; 2003CriLJ1596
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. This Contempt Appeal is directed against the order dated 27-9-2002 made in Contempt Case No. 704 of 2002 by a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge by the said order dated 27-9-2002 punished the appellant herein with imprisonment to stand up in the Court till the Court raises and to pay Rs. 2,000/- as fine within two weeks and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The said order is challenged on various grounds by the appellant. 2. In order to consider the various submissions made on behalf of the appellant herein challenging the impugned order, it may be necessary to notice certain basic statutory features enshrined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). 3. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced in the statute-book for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general and for due and proper administration of justice. It is a powerful weapon in the hands of the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD253; 1998(2)ALT72
ORDER1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether there should be an order to be passed by the respondent-Employees State Insurance Corporation (E.S.I.) under Section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') before proceeding to recover under Section 45B of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The determination of question has arisen because of these facts.2. The appellant is an industry. It was to remit contributions to the Corporation under Section 39 of the Act regarding the employees who are to be compulsorily insured under Section 38 of the Act. The appellant is covered by the Act. The respondent Corporation initiated proceedings for recovery of Rs.6,814-18 ps. towards the alleged ESI contributions for the periods extending from December, 1975 to March, 1977. The appellant raised dispute before the ESI Court under Section 75 of the Act raising a dispute as to its liability to pay the amounts demanded on the grounds viz., that there was no defa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP368
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. These appeals are under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of our learned brother, Bhimasankaram J., in S. A. Nos. 923 and 924 of 3953.2. The plaintiff is the appellant in both these appeals. He instituted two suits (O. S. Nos. 293 and 294 of 1950 on the file of the D. M. C. Nandyal) impeaching two alienations made by the 1st defendant, under Exhibits B.12 and B.13 dated 27-8-1937, and for a declaration in both the suits that' the relative alienations would not bind the reversion. The facts which have contributed to this litigation lie in a narrow compass and could be narrated in a few words. One Hanumantha Reddy, who was a divided brother of the appellant, had an only son who was afflicted with serious illness and which caused an apprehension in the mind of Hanumantha Reddy that his son might not survive long. He, therefore, made a will dated 18th June 1923 (Ex. B. 45), the relevant contents of which are given, hereunder :'I have a son by name S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978AP97
1. The point that arises for determination is whether in view of S. 100A of the Civil P. C., a Letters Patent Appeal lies from the judgment of a single Judge of the High Court in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal from an order of remand made by the lower appellate Court while disposing of an appeal.FACTS:2. The respondents filed the suit O. S. No. 122/66 before the District Munsif, Giddalur for partition of a bus with all its accessories into sixteen shares and for allotment of three such shares to them or to apply the provisions of the Partnership Act and for an account of all realisations made by the 1st defendant. Various issues were framed but the trial of the suit was confined to the issue as regards the maintainability of the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the suit is not maintainable as the alleged partnership was opposed to public policy and offends the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and S. 23 of the Contract Act.3. Aggrieved by that decision, the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1988AP215
ORDER1. This review petition raises two questions of law :1. Whether a letters patent appeal lay to a Division Bench against an appellate order of single Judge in an appeal under O. 43, R.1, C.P.C. read with S. 104(1), C.P.C. and whether S. 104(2) was a bar to the maintainability of a Letters patent appeal under cl.15 of the Letters Patent and consequently whether this review petition is not maintainable? 2. Whether in the case of a sale or a share in the hypotheca by some of the co- mortgagors to the usufructuary mortgagee, S. 60 of the T.P. Act requires the non- alienating co-mortgagor to sue for redemption of his own share and whether, if the sale in favour of the mortgagee is pending the suit filed for redemption and possession of the whole Property, S. 52 of the T.P. Act requires the mortgagee to first surrender possession of the entire property and then sue for partition and possession.? 2. I shall initially deal with the first question mentioned above and 1 shall deal with the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP228
Kumarayya, J.1. The office has raised an objection as regards the maintainability of this L.P.A. for want of leave of the Court as contemplated by Clause 15 of the Letters Patent on the ground that the order appealed against was passed in C.M. Ps. in Second Appeal and, therefore, the question whether the party has an unqualified statutory right of appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act was therefore of little moment. It would appear from the facts of the case that in the course of Second Appeal 203 of 1962, the parties agreed that the subject matter of dispute may be referred to the Arbitrators. At their request this Court directed the dispute to be submitted to the Arbitrators for decision. The Arbitrator passed an award and remitted the same to the Court. The appellant herein raised objection thereto and requested the Court to set aside the award. The Court heard the arguments and finally passed an order refusing to set aside the award and directed that a decree be drawn in t...
Tag this Judgment!