1. Plaintiff No.1 is a Company registered in USA, whereas plaintiff No.2 is a Company registered in India. Plaintiff No.2 has been licensed by plaintiff No.1 to sell and distribute its products in India. The plaintiff...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 22 2014

M/S.Proctor and Gamble Home Products Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Decided on: Jan-22-2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE22D DAY OF JANUARY20142ND MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 2107 of 2014 (K) --------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------------- M/S.PROCTOR AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS LTD., EDAPPALLY.P.O.,...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 25 2016

Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co Ltd & Ors. Vs.anchor Healt ...

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Oct-25-2016

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:03. 10.2016 Judgment delivered on:25. 10.2016 FAO (OS) 257/2016 PROCTOR & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING (TIANJIN) CO LTD & ORS. ..... Appellants versus ANCHOR HEALTH AND BEAUTY CARE PVT LTD

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 18 1988

The Proctor and Gamble Company Represented by Power of Attorney Holder ...

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Apr-18-1988

Reported in: (1989)1MLJ36

Srinivasan, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the order of Bhaskaran, J., sitting on the original side of this Court, dismissing the applications filed by the appellant for injunction and allowing the applications filed by...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 24 2005

Proctor and Gamble and Shri Ashish Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on: Jun-24-2005

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT490Tri(Mum.)bai

relationship between it and PGHP as also shareholding pattern of PGIL, PGHP, Richardson Vicks Inc USA and the Proctor & Gamble Company, USA who is holding company of Richardson Vicks Inc. USA was also informed in this

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 21 2006

Proctor and Gamble India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on: Jul-21-2006

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC657

1. In this case, modvat credit of Rs. 29,923/- has been disallowed to the appellants herein on the ground that this credit was taken on the strength of invoice in which they were not shown as...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 01 2011