Shoe - Judgment Search Results

Hanover Shoe, Inc. Vs. United Shoe Machinery Corp.

Court: US Supreme Court

Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp. - 392 U.S. 481 (1968) U.S. Supreme Court Hanover Shoe, Inc. v.

Kiran Shoes Manufacturers vs.m/s Welcome Shoes Pvt Ltd & Ors

Court: Delhi

$~5 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 1723/2011 KIRAN SHOES MANUFACTURERS ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Pranay Sarkar, Advocate. versus M/S WELCOME SHOES PVT LTD & ORS ..... Defendants

Goodenough Horse Shoe Mfg. Co. Vs. R. I. Horse Shoe Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

Goodenough Horse Shoe Mfg. Co. v. R. I. Horse Shoe Co. - 154 U.S. 635 (1877) U.S. Supreme Court Goodenough Horse

Workmen of Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1972SC1436; 1972LabIC847; (1972)IILLJ197SC; (1972)3SCC627; [1973]1SCR450

Matched in: Parties Workmen of Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd.

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kundra Shoes

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR471(Delhi); 2007(96)DRJ34

and which was registered as CS(OS) 1257-A of 2000 and the petition which was filed by M/s Kundra Shoes under Section 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the Award was filed by the

Saddler Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Vs. Air India and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2001VIAD(SC)28; 2001(49)BLJR2092; III(2001)CPJ1(SC); JT2001(7)SC122; 2001(5)SCALE550; (2001)8SCC390; 2001(2)LC1562(SC)

leading to this appeal are as follows:In the original petition before the National Commission, the appellant, M/s Saddler Shoes Pvt. Ltd., acting through their agent M/s Sheriff Travel and Cargo Service Pvt. Ltd. booked two consignments of

Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2002SC2427; 2002(4)AWC2433(SC); 2002(2)BLJR1505; [2002]111CompCas515(SC); (2002)4CompLJ329(SC); II(2002)CPJ7(SC); [2002(3)JCR48(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC111; (2002)3MLJ184(SC);

Brijesh Kumar, J.1. Leave granted. Heard appellant in person and the learned counsel for the respondent.2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated April 9, 2001 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressed Commission...

M.S. Shoes East Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs, Icd, New Delhi

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2007(210)ELT641(SC); 2007(5)SCALE312; (2007)5SCC185

Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order No. 158/06-Cus dated 24.5.2006 in Appeal No. Cus/895/2004 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.2. The dispute in this...

Topline Shoes Ltd. and anr. Vs. Corporation Bank and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: (2002)10SCC358

S. Rajendra Babu and; S.N. Variava, JJ.1. In this appeal the appellants are calling in question an order made by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the Commission”) by which it declined to adjudicate...

Carona Shoe Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. K.C. Bhaskaran Nair

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1989SC1110; [1989]1CompCas660(SC); JT1989(1)SC525; 1989(2)KLT306(SC); 1989(1)SCALE588; (1989)2SCC395; [1989]1SCR974; 1989(2)LC57(SC)

1977. The second mortgage deed recited that the shop in Item 1 which was in possession of Carona Shoe Company, was given for enjoyment. Therefore, the fact that the tenant was there, is accepted.11. It was contended