Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-03-2006
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
Decided on : Jun-05-2006
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
Decided on : Dec-21-2006
Reported in : 2007(3)ALD805; 2007(2)ALT566
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. Indeed a common order was dictated in open Court after having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents was absent. The order proceeded only on jurisdictional issue. But it was not transcribed and signed. Some time after the order was dictated in open Court, the learned Counsel on record representing the respondents appeared. At his request, the matters were directed to be called under the caption 'For being mentioned' on the next date. When the matter thus appeared under that caption, both the learned Counsel were heard again afresh. After having heard them at some length on the jurisdictional issue, it was felt expedient to hear the arguments on merits and we decided to recall the earlier order. The matters were accordingly adjourned. Both the learned Counsel submitted written arguments. The learned Counsel for the first respondent by name Sri Rakesh Sanghi, who submitted writt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-24-2006
Reported in : 2006(6)ALT523; 2007(1)CTC97; AIR2007AP57; 2007(2)AIRKarR382(FB)
V.V.S. Rao, J.PART - IINTRODUCTION:1. Almost a century old Registration Act, 1908, which came into force on 01.01.1909, after about fifteen amendments, has now thrown up sea-saw situation played by human ingenuity. These cases have thrown up a couple of interesting questions of law having far reaching consequences. Whether a person can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed? Whether a registering officer, like District Registrar and/or Sub Registrar appointed by the State Government, is bound to refuse registration when a cancellation deed is presented? When cancellation deed is registered how the grievance, if any, is to be redressed in law? These and other incidental questions are required to be answered by this Full Bench.BACKGROUND FACTS:2. At the outset, brief reference may be made to the pleadings, in these petitions. W.P. No. 23005 of 2004 is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent (hereafter call...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-07-2006
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD442; 2006(5)ALT361
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.PART-I INTRODUCTION:1. This common Judgment shall dispose of these petitions involving common questions for consideration. There are mainly three categories of petitioners. First category of petitioners (W.P. Nos. 9458, 10491, 10304 and 10773 of 2005) are the wholesale merchants of Vijayawada, who are also members of a society called Vijayawada Wholesale Commercial Complex Members Welfare Society (Merchants Association, for brevity). The petitioners in this sub-group are also members of their respective trade associations. Second category of cases is filed by the wholesale merchants, who are allegedly not members of the Merchants Association, but they are members of their respective trade associations. Vijayawada Daily Parcel Lorry Office Owners Welfare Association and other Lorry transporters filed third category of cases. The alleged restraint imposed on the right to carry on business by seizingtheir respective business places/shops brought them together for redres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-28-2006
Reported in : 2007(1)ALD598; 2007(1)ALT177
P. Swaroop Reddy, J.1. Both these appeals have been filed by the appellant, Dr. KollamPadma Latha, against the common judgment in O.P. Nos. 1 of 1999 and 203 of 2000 dated 29-8-2002 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.2. O.P. No. 1 of 1999 was filed by Dr. Kollam Padma Latha(hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') against her husband Dr. Kollam Chandrasekhar (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') and Rule 6(f) of the Rules for restitution of conjugal rights where as O.P.No. 203 of 2000 was filed by the respondent against the appellant under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act for divorce. Both the O.Ps. were disposed of by a common order dated 29-8-2002.3. The facts in brief and relevant to decide the appeal as per the appellant are as under:(i) The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 31-5-1995 at Kakinada as per Hindu Rites and the appellant joined the respondent and thei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-28-2006
Reported in : 2006(6)ALD309
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. Whether the amendment made in Rule 27(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005(for short, 'the Shop Rules') vide G.O. Ms. No. 598, Revenue (Ex.II), dated 26-5-2006, which was published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated May 26, 2006 extending the restriction of 100 meters against the location of liquor shops from the places of public worship, educational institutions and hospitals to Municipal Corporation areas is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution is the question which arises for determination in these petitions (except taken up Writ Petition Nos. 9662 and 11640 of 2006) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Writ Petition No. 9662 of 2006 is an off-shoot of order dated 10-4-2006 passed by the Court in Writ Petition No. 482 of 2006 whereby, while disposing of that writ petition, the Court suo motu directed the Commissioner of Prohibition and Exci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-18-2006
Reported in : 2006CriLJ3988
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Common questions arise for consideration in Criminal Petition Nos. 4325 of 2003, 3701 of 2004, 3856 of 2005, and 1007 of 2003, as to whether delay, in furnishing a copy of the analyst report beyond the 'Best Before' date or the expiry date of the shelf life of the product, could, by itself, be said to have resulted in the accused being denied the opportunity of sending the sample for analysis to the Central Food/ Seeds Laboratory, and in their suffering prejudice thereby. While Crl. P. No. 4325 of 2003 and Crl. P. No. 1007 of 2003 arise under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Crl. P. No. 3701 of 2004 and Crl. No. 3856 of 2005 arise under the Seeds Act.Crl. P. No. 4325 of 2003:3. This petition is filed to have the proceedings in C.C. No. 213 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, quashed.3. Allegations in the complaint, are that the Food Inspector took samples of Lehar 7-Up, Lehar Carbonated Water and Pepsi-Cola beverag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-17-2006
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD372; [2007(112)FLR24]
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, (Central), Hyderabad in ID. No. 68 of 1990 dated 18.11.1993, whereby the 1st respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages and protection of seniority among employees of Mahaboobnagar District, the present writ petition is filed.2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the 1st respondent was employed on daily wages as a casual mazdoor from 10.1.1984 to 30.11.1984. After a break of seven months, his services was again engaged on 1.7.1985 and he worked continuously till 31.3.1986. During this period, between 1.7.1985 and 31.3.1986, he actually worked for 183 days and was not given weekly offs. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioner herein, in retrenching the 1st respondent from service, a dispute was raised and consequent thereto the Central Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The order of reference reads as under:Whether the action of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-20-2006
Reported in : AIR2007AP119; 2007(2)ALD129
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage was performed on 7-3-2000. The respondent filed H.M.O.P. No. 80 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act'), against the petitioner. He alleged that the petitioner became unconscious, on the next day of marriage itself, and that the fact that she was suffering from rheumatic heart disease was not known to him. Without specifying any independent ground, but citing Section 12 of the Act, he sought for annulment of the marriage. At the instance of the petitioner, the O.P. was transferred to the Family Court, Hyderabad and re-numbered as O.P. No. 742 of 2004. Through its order, dated 22-12-2005, the Family Court decreed the O.P. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the said decree. Since there was delay of 75 days in filing the same, she also filed I .A. No. 376 of 2006, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!