Fruit - Judgment Search Results

Standard Fruit and Steamship Vs. United Fruit

Court: US Supreme Court

(1969) U.S. Supreme Court STANDARD FRUIT & STEAMSHIP v. UNITED FRUIT, 393 U.S. 406 (1969) 393 U.S. 406 STANDARD FRUIT &

Mysore Fruit Products Limited and ors. Vs. Fruits and Vegetables (Spl. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2004CriLJ340; ILR2004KAR426; 2004(1)KarLJ461; 2009(3)KCCR1580

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This petition is filed assailing the order passed by the 7th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore...

American Fruit Growers, Inc. Vs. Brogdex Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

not interfere with the so-called breathing or transpiration of the fruit to an undesirable extent, but which is effective to conserve

Variety Dry Fruit Stores Vs. Variety Agencies

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(3)ALT151

contends that the respondent retired from the firm 'Variety Dry Fruit Stores' by reason of Ex.A-14, Dissolution Deed, whereunder he agreed

Adams Fruit Co., Inc. Vs. Barrett

Court: US Supreme Court

is not curtailed. More generally, we refuse to adopt Adams Fruit's "reverse" preemption principle that would authorize States to withdraw federal

Rayeen Fruit Company and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2001

at Subzi Mandi. Shahjahanpur inasmuch as no truck, etc. carrying fruits and vegetables were being allowed to unload at subzi mandi.

Jammu Fruit Association Vs. J.D.a and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 2004(3)JKJ418

of land adjoining to the shop No. 20, Phase~I at Fruit Market Complex has been carved out and allotted to respondent-6

American Dry Fruit Stores Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT775Tri(Mum.)bai

Policy AM-1984-85 nor the Policy 1985-88 permitted import of dry fruits under OGL. Only dates were allowed to be imported under

American Dry Fruits Stores Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT526Tri(Mum.)bai

12 of the Policy, Paragraph 79 permits import of fresh fruits, dry fruits and Dates for the purpose of stock and

Lansa Fruit Co. Vs. Universal Ins. Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

Co. v. Universal Ins. Co., 302 U.S. 556 (1938) Lansa Fruit Steamship & Importing Co. v. Universal Insurance Co. No. 57