Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
7 cases · page 1 of 1
Chittepu Lakshmi Reddy v.Sri Sitarama Educational Society
This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking a direction to the trial court (VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa) for expeditious disposal of O.S.No.46/2021, a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction pending for over five years. The petitioners relied on Judicial Notification No.3/SO/2016 prescribing a 24-month disposal timeline for certain categories of cases. The High Court, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, declined to fix a rigid time-bound schedule and instead directed the trial court to endeavour for early disposal based on the seniority of pending cases.
Addala Sitamahalakshmi v.State Of Andhra Pradesh
The petitioner, a publishing house, challenged G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010, which restricted book printing rights to one entity (Respondent No.4), leading to an inspection and seizure of the petitioner's books. The petitioner argued that their business was being unfairly targeted and that non-literary scientific books are not protected by copyright.
Three Plaintiffs v.Revision Petitioner (Defendant in original suit)
A suit was filed by three plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for using the trademark 'IONS'. The defendant challenged the plaint, which was dismissed. The present Civil Revision Petition challenged this dismissal, arguing that Article 227 grants unfettered power of superintendence. The Court held that Article 227 cannot be used to circumvent Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, and thus dismissed the revision petition.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the procedural actions taken by various respondents, including the delayed service of Counter Statement and taking on record evidence in an opposition proceeding (Opposition No. 969651). The petitioner sought directions to reject the opposing evidence and register their trademark application.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the actions of various respondents, including the Union of India and the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The core dispute revolved around procedural violations in Opposition No. 969651 concerning Trademark Application No. 3017984, specifically regarding the delay in serving documents and taking on record evidence.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner challenged the actions of various respondents, including the Union of India and the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, regarding delays in proceedings related to Trademark Application No. 3017984 (Opposition No. 969651). The petition sought a writ of mandamus to reject certain evidence and register the mark.
M/S Clean Tech Corrosion Chemicals v.The State Of Andhra Pradesh
The petitioner, M/S Clean Tech Corrosion Chemicals, sought a writ of mandamus compelling the State of Andhra Pradesh to implement instructions mandating the use of its patented anti-corrosion admixture inhibitor liquid, CONCARE, in RCC structures. The state argued that it only recommended 'CONCARE or equivalent products' and was not bound to procure from the petitioner alone. The court ruled that while policy decisions are generally beyond judicial interference, the respondents must ensure that if they choose to use an anti-corrosion agent, it must be a licensed product.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.