File Wrapper - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: file wrapper Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 585 results (0.095 seconds)State of Rajasthan Vs. Ravi Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2608; RLW2003(2)Raj925; 2002(4)WLN234
..... informed the court as under at a 25 1 on the file of the lower court outer wrapper of the parcel is found soaked with some coloured and ..... that parcel box is intact and no stain is found on the outer wrapper the brown paper packet of cjm is found soaked with contents of the ..... 4th may 1991 he moved an application ex b 2 3 on the file of trial court to get the sample re analysed as per the judgment .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTNaresh Confectionery Works Vs. JaIn Confectionery
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)504; 98(2002)DLT285; 2002(25)PTC129(Del)
..... items under theimpugned trade mark new kamal coconut bar or artistic wrapper identical to the plaintiff s trade mark kamal 2 is ..... and sale of confectioneryproducts under the trade mark kamal has filed an application ia 9173 01 under order 39 rules 1 ..... mark new kamal in respect of same products the plaintiff filed petition for temporary injunction for restraining the defendant for selling similar .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBritannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Om Food Products
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(25)PTC472(Del)
..... sale advertising directly or indirectly dealing in biscuits packed in the impugned 50 50 wrappers or any other wrapper as may be a colourable imitation and substantial reproduction of the features of ..... written statement however in spite of opportunities granted to the defendant no written statement was filed and the counsel also defaulted in appearance on subsequent dates accordingly it was ordered .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Central Excise Vs. Thio Pharma
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC704Tri(Delhi)
..... the brand name of respondents which is displayed prominently on the wrapper packing and name of the marketing was displayed in only ..... benefit of small scale exemption and confirmed the demand the respondents filed the appeal and the commissioner appeals allowed the benefit of ..... bear any mark of marketing firm 3 heard both sides revenue filed this appeal challenging the order in appeal in respect of .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPanacea Biotec Limited Vs. Anchor Pharma Pvt. Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)598; 97(2002)DLT407; 2002(24)PTC752(Del)
..... including nimesulide tablets and for order for destruction of all the blocks dies packing cartons wrappers packing boxes packing material cartons and stationery etc used for infringing the aforesaid trade mark ..... certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff company which establishes that the present suit has been filed by a duly authorised person the deponent has further proved the averments in the .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTNew Ambadi Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: [2004]265ITR543(Mad)
deposits for the assessment year 1993 94 the petitioner company filed a return under the tamil nadu agricultural income tax act
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTChem Teak Company Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: [2003]131STC427(Ker)
minutes dated march 30 1998 exhibit p5 the petitioner has filed o p no 15979 of 1998 seeking to quash the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTDeccan Industrial Products Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC803
second appeal on the same subject no e 840 2001 filed on 17 8 2001 there is no board s order
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPopular Automobiles Vs. Eddy Current Controls India Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT331
seven invoices ext b2 to b8 though the plaintiff has filed a replication the contention raised in the replication are those
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMaruti Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC606
the reasoning of the commissioner that the appellants have not filed any claim under rule 173l is erroneous as the prescribed
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>
Sign-up to get more results
Unlock complete result pages and premium legal research features.
Start Free Trial