Gambling - Judgment Search Results

Labor Board Vs. Gamble Enterprises

Court: US Supreme Court

..... in akron ohio has been one of an interstate chain of theaters managed by respondent gamble enterprises inc which is a washington corporation with its principal office in new york before ..... s 117 1953 u s supreme court labor board v gamble enterprises 345 u s 117 1953 national labor relations board v gamble enterprises no 238 argued november 19 1952 decided march .....

Estelle Vs. Gamble

Court: US Supreme Court

..... pain to work muddox had respondent moved to administrative segregation footnote 5 on december 5 gamble was taken before the prison disciplinary committee apparently because of his refusal to work ..... prescription both times throughout the month respondent was kept in administrative segregation on january 31 gamble was brought before the prison disciplinary committee for his refusal to work in early .....

Barry Vs. Gamble

Court: US Supreme Court

..... been located whilst the bar continued this was an ejectment brought by gamble the defendant in error against barry to recover possession of a ..... page 44 u s 33 the question was one of title gamble the plaintiff below claimed under a grant issued to baptiste lafleur ..... passed by congress thirdly the location survey and patent under which gamble claimed being void the 11th section of the act of 26 may .....

Mason Vs. Gamble

Court: US Supreme Court

..... u s 390 1858 u s supreme court mason v gamble 62 u s 21 how 390 390 1858 mason v gamble 62 u s 21 how 390 error to the circuit .....

Gambli Vs. K. Ramakrishnappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1968]38CompCas272(Kar)

1 on august 26 1952 a motor vehicle belonging to a company affording transport facilities known as the chikkamagalur public...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. D.M. Turner

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1978]48CompCas144(Bom); [1978]111ITR943(Bom)

..... the question are these the two assessees mrs d m turner and mrs p m gamble were shareholders in a company called harveys private ltd each holding 1 000 shares it .....

United States Vs. Five Gambling Devices

Court: US Supreme Court

..... of the act of january 2 1951 footnote 1 which prohibits shipment of gambling machines in interstate commerce but includes incidental registration and reporting provisions two indictments ..... necessary appropriate and probably essential means for enforcing the ban on interstate transportation of gambling devices the question presented then is whether congress is empowered by the constitution .....

New York Life Insurance Company Vs. Phoebe Stella Gamble

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal593

..... the defendant compile in the month of october 1893 john frederick gamble who for several years had been resident in calcutta died in ..... bose the said native doctor then examined the said john frederick gamble in a separate room and when the examination was finished the ..... and representations which form the very basis of the contract 20 but gamble s agreement did not stop here there is another and an .....

Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd. Vs. C.C. and C. Ex.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(165)ELT4(MP)

..... made to finance the production of the product which solely purchased by procter gamble home product and procter gamble home product also has say over the pricing of the said products therefore ..... wilfully suppressed this fact i e collection of extra commercial consideration from m s procter gamble home product the only buyer of the brand and such collection of extra commercial consideration .....

Procter and Gamble Home Products Ltd. Vs. C.C. and C. Ex.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(128)ELT330(MP)

..... in verbatim is reproduced as under ariel compact detergent powder made in india by proctor gamble home products ltd mumbai 400011 considering the terms conditions of the agreement and the facts ..... ariel ariel was being manufactured and marketed by petitioner company in name of procter and gamble india ltd pgil thereafter divested its business in favour of petitioner company pgil informed regarding .....