Patronizing - Judgment Search Results

SAJNA Vs Patron Louis,

Court: Kerala

HARIMOHANAM, A-13, CP GOPALAPANICKER LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695010. BY ADVS. K.MOHANAKANNAN SAABIR F. HAQ RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: PATRON LOUIS, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.ROBERT LOUIS, TC 45/77, DIAMOND NIVAS, WATT'S ROAD, CHERIATHURA, VALLAKKADAVU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -

Patron Detective and Security Services Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi

G. Raghuram, J. 1. At the stage of considering the stay application since the issue falls within a narrow compass we dispose of this substantive appeal after hearing Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Advocate for the appellant...

Patron (India) Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC202

1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.56/PAT/CEX/APPEAL/2003 dated 17th March, 2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Patna.2. The duty involved in the case is Rs. 78663 and an equal amount...

M/S Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs.the Chief Patron/Vice Preside ...

Court: Delhi

2 M/S SUMAN FORWARDING AGENCY PVT. LTD......... Petitioner Through: Mr.Harvinder Singh and Mr.Shiven Khurana, Advocates versus THE CHIEF PATRON/VICE PRESIDENT/GENERAL SECRETARY, CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION MAJDOOR UNION ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Asha Jain Madan and Mr.Mukesh Jain, Advocates for

R. Kaaruppan Vs. Patron of the Chennai Rifle Club and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2004Mad167

P. D. Dinakaran, J.1. In brief, a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of M. Karpagavinayagam, J. and S. Ashok Kumar, J. by order dated 5-12-2003, concededly, on the directions of the Apex Court dated 6-3-2003...

The Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy, rep. by its Patron P.P. ...

Court: Kerala

is a registered association. No document has been produced to prove that P.P.Philip who claims to be the Patron of the 1st petitioner is actually the Patron of the 1st petitioner and he is authorised to file