Pigeons - Judgment Search Results

Pigeon Vs. Buck

Court: US Supreme Court

Pigeon v. Buck - 237 U.S. 386 (1915) U.S. Supreme Court Pigeon v. Buck, 237 U.S. 386 (1915) Pigeon

Pigeon Appliances Private Limited vs Gubbala Srinivas Rao

Court: Karnataka

OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1310 OF 2017 (A) BETWEEN:1. PIGEON APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITEDA COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT

National Pigeon Associatino of India (Npa India) vs Union of India

Court: Kerala

of the petitioner Organisation.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the membersof the petitioner Organization breeds fancy pigeons, which have no contact with migratory birds or other poultry birds, which are said to be the carriers

Pigeon River Co. Vs. Charles W. Cox, Ltd.

Court: US Supreme Court

Pigeon River Co. v. Charles W. Cox, Ltd. - 291 U.S. 138 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court Pigeon River Co.

Principal Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vs M/S Pigeon Internation ...

Court: Karnataka

BOBBA BUILDING, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE URBAN, KARNATAKA 560 300. …APPELLANT (BY SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE) AND:Digitally signed 1. M/S PIGEON INTERNATIONAL, by VALLI ROOM No.245/F, MAZ BUSINESS CENTRE, MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH MAZ JUNCTION, VALIYAPARAMBA P. O., COURT OF

innovative Pharma Surgicals Vs. Pigeon Medical Devices (P) Ltd. and or ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2004AP310; 2004(3)ALD228; 2004(4)ALT8

Pursuant to the said letter of appointment, the said Bhaskara Reddy and his associates incorporated the plaintiff-company i.e., Pigeon Medical Devices Private Limited and got itself registered with Commercial Tax Department of the State and the Central.

Maya Appliances Private Limited, Represented by Mr. Durairajan General ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2004(4)CTC334

of the applicant it came to their knowledge that the respondent organised a dealer's meet at Chennai launching PIGEON CHEFMATE AND CHEFMATEPLUS mixer grinders. The respondent with ulterior motives employed the services of the same performer who