Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents act 1970 39 of 1970 section 150 security for costs Court: andhra pradesh Year: 1966 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.243 seconds)

Jun 27 1966 (HC)

Bommidala Poornaish Vs. the Union of India

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-27-1966

Reported in : AIR1967AP338

Jaganmohan Reddy, J.(1) This appeal has been referred to a Bench by our learned brother Basi Reddy, J having regard to the general importance on certain questions arising in the case namely:-(1) Does the bar of limitation prescribed by sub-section (2) of Sec. 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, apply to a suit of the nature out of which this appeal arises, viz., a suit for a declaration that the order of the Collector, Central Excise, levying penalty and duty on certain tobacco is illegal? (2) If the said provision does apply, then which is the crucial order for purposes of limitation, the order of the Collector, or the order passed by the Government of India on revision? And (3) The admissibility of the opinion of an expert without the expert being examined.(2) The appellant-plaintiff is a licensed tobacco trader in Guntur. He had entered into a contract on 1-6-1965 with a Japan Monopoly through the Tokyo Food Products Ltd., for supply of 500 bales of tobacco from 1955 crop ...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1966 (HC)

Kumarika Subarna Rekha Mani Devi and ors. Vs. Ramakrishna Deo and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-01-1966

Reported in : AIR1968AP239

Jagan Mohan Reddy, C.J.1. I have had the advantage and benefit of perusing the judgments of my learned brothers Kumarayya J., and Venkatesam, J. As the contentions, urged before us having been set out by Kumarayya, J, in his judgment. I find it unnecessary to reiterate them in any great detail.2. The question before us is what is the court-fee payable under the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1956) (hereinafter called 'the Act') on a memorandum of appeal filed against an order rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 C PC. Order 7 Rule 11 mentions four grounds on any one of which a plaint may be rejected. It reads thus:'The plaint shall be reiected in the following cases: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed bv the Court, failed to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is writte...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1966 (HC)

P. Sagar and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Health De ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-07-1966

Reported in : AIR1968AP165

P. Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. This batch of 104 Writ Petitions, referred to a Bench by an order of one of us (Venkatesam, J.) as they raise important Constitutional issues, challenges the reservations made by the Rules for selection of candidates for admission to the Integrated M. B. B. S. course in the Andhra and the Telangana are, issued through G O. Ms. No. 1135 and 1136, Health, Hoasins and Municipal Administration Department dated the 16th June 1966, of these, 84 are from the Andhra area and 20 are from the Telangana area. In the main the impugned reservations are common to both the areas, except in so far as they have been indicated hereafter.2. In the Telangana area, the Seats for admission available in the Osmania Medical College are 150 while those in the Gandhi Medical College are 120; and applications for admission to these 270 seats were invited for the academic year 1966-67. Similarly for the Andhra area, the seats for which applications were called for are 150 in the Andhra...

Tag this Judgment!


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