Advertisement - Judgment Search Results

Crayons Advertising Ltd Vs. Crayon Advertising

Court: Delhi

etc. the plaintiff is not in this field. It is stated that there is no proof given of advertisement of their name and hence there is nothing to show that defendant was aware about the name of

Srs Advertising And Marketing Pvt. Ltd Vs. Kamal Garg

Court: Supreme Court of India

[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1302­1303 OF2022SRS Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ..Appellant(s) Versus Mr. Kamal Garg & Anr. ..Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah,

Percept Advertising Ltd. Vs. M. Ravindran, Administrator, Anubhav Plan ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [2003]114CompCas652(SC); (2003)3CompLJ143(SC); 2003(2)SCALE643; (2003)10SCC84

ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The first respondent as an Administrator of a company under winding-up proceedings before the Company Judge had filed Company Application NO. 260/02 in Company Petition No. 130 of 1990...

Haabia Advertising India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: JT2009(4)SC633

for the parties.3. The appellant is an Advertising Company. It is engaged in the business of putting up advertisements through hoardings and sky-signs at Visakhapatnam. In 1994, the appellant filed complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer

Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State, Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2007SC1650; 2007BusLRSN-4(SC); [2007]137CompCas32(SC); (2007)3CompLJ410(SC); 2007CriLJ2442; (2007)3GLR2062(SC); JT2007(5)SC529; 2007(3)KLT831(SC); 2007(6)MhLj49; 2007MPL

was arrayed as Accused No. 6 in the complaint petition. The Company is engaged in the business of advertising and publicity. By an agreement dated 17.07.1995, the Company as also Accused No. 6 entered into an agreement

Supri Advertising and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Anahita Pandole ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR536; 2008(12)SCALE29; (2008)10SCC246; 2008AIRSCW6168; 2008(6)Supreme371; 2008(5)LH(SC)3149

that no person shall, without the written permission of the Municipal Commissioner, erect, exhibit, fix or retain any advertisement upon any land, building, wall, hoarding or structure. Certain types of advertisements exempted from the aforesaid restriction, are

Kalabharati Advertising .Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that the appellant who is carrying out a business of advertisement hoardings within the city of Bombay approached the Society in 2001 for grant of permission to erect a

Aries Advertising Bureau Vs. C.T. Devaraj (Dead) by Lrs.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1995SC2251; JT1995(2)SC576; 1995(2)SCALE103; (1995)3SCC250; [1995]2SCR251; 1995(1)LC730(SC)

defendant Balakrishnan. It laid a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 27,000 and odd towards the advertisement charges impleading the respondent, as first defendant, alongwith Balakrishnan as second defendant. Balakrishnan remained ex-pane and an ex-pane

Selmore Advertiser and ors. Vs. Administrator, Indore Municipal Corpor ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1999SC2328; JT1998(9)SC416; 1999(1)MPLJ488; (1998)8SCC441

validity of the notification dated 10-8-1973 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Indore, for imposition of tax on advertisements other than advertisements published in the newspapers.2. The Municipal Corporation, Indore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipal Corporation')

Links Advertisers and Business Promoters Vs. Commissioner, Corporation ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1977SC1646; 1977(2)KarLJ151; (1977)3SCC204; [1977]3SCR670; 1977(9)LC411(SC)

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. Whether hoardings containing advertisement fixed in the premises of a railway station fronting a public street are exigible to tax under the