Andhra Pradesh‚ whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and confirmed the order dated 30.03.2005 passed by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge‚ Mahabubnagar‚ Andhra Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 197 of 2002. Acts/Rules/Orders: Evidence Act‚ 1872 - Section 302 ‚ Section 498A ‚ Indian Penal Code‚ 1860. Brief Facts The victim‚ Smt. Kalyani‚ the deceased in this case‚ was married to the appellant on 26.04.2000. Ever since‚ she was being ill-treated and harassed by
Premium Evidence law Andhra Pradesh
Jackson‚ the Appellate‚ was a mentally deficient deaf. He wasn’t able to read‚ write or communicate. The Appellate was charged with robbery of two different women. Appellant robbed the women for four and five dollars respectively. Appellant was found to be incompetent to stand trial at an incompetency hearing. The Court ordered Appellant to be committed until he was competent to stand trial. Issue: Was the Appellant’s Constitutional rights violated? Did Indiana’s pre-trial commitment violate the Appellant’s
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law Court
revoked it. In 2008‚ Ms. Lindsay stated that she had left “everything” to the appellant in her Will. Nora Lindsay passed away on 16 October 2012‚ aged 90 and was survived be her two children; the appellant‚ Geoffrey Lindsay and the respondent‚ Heather McGrath. The appellant considered that the deceased may have passed away without a last Will and was granted Letters of Administration on the basis of intestacy. The appellant obtained a five-page handwritten document from
Premium Document Documents
“Conflict Between Law and Morality” * Aakriti Pandey Student of RMLNLU‚ Lucknow Introduction In ancient times there was no distinction between law & morals. The Hindu jurist in ancient India did not make any distinction between law & morals. However‚ later on‚ some distinction came to be made in actual practice. The Mimansa made a distinction between obligatory and recommendatory rules. By the time the commentaries were written‚ the distinction was clearly established in theory also
Free Law Morality Appeal
the Court of Criminal Appeal reversed. APPEAL from an order of the Court of Criminal Appeal refusing leave to Reginald Woolmington‚ the appellant‚ to appeal against his conviction of the wilful murder of Violet Kathleen Woolmington‚ who was his wife. The appellant was convicted on February 14‚ 1935‚ at Bristol Assizes before Swift J. and a jury. The appellant and his wife were married on August 25‚ 1934. He was a farm labourer and bore a good character. His age was twenty-one and a half years‚
Premium Law Mother Criminal law
namely the shop house project and the TAR Centre. FACTS OF THE CASE: • The appellant become the sole developer of the TAR Centre project after it had acquired Tamasa Holding’s share for a cash consideration of RM 572758. • The development expenses and costs relating to the two projects such as shop house project and the TAR Centre‚ were capitalised in the development accounts of the appellant. • The income of RM 35914865.48 come from the proceeds of sales of the shop houses
Premium Real estate Expense Revenue
15thFebruary 2010 Saira Banu MLS Tutorial: 3-4 pm Cases i) Strait Settlements Reception of English Law Case Kamoo v Thomas Turner Bassett In the Goods of Abdullah Facts Pf‚ a native from Bengal‚ had agreed in June 1806 to be employed by the Df‚ as a “khidmuggur” or a table servant in Penang at a salary of $6/mnth. Unfortunately‚ since his employment‚ the Pf had been severely ill-treated by the Df. On July 20‚ 1907‚ the Pf was whipped 20 times with a rattan by an order by the Df. Pf complained
Premium Common law Malaysia
harm others. This concept is known as the "harm principle". The cases of R. v. Malmo-Levine and R. v. Caine deal with the possession of marihuana and the appellants argue that criminalization and punishment of possession of marihuana goes against their rights as stated by section 7 in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The appellants rely on the harm principle as a principle of fundamental justice and suggest that such criminalization is a violation towards that fundamental principle. The
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Law
Port Trust (Second Respondent) entrusted the work of construction of certain bridges to Afcon Infrastructure Ltd ( Appellants) in 2001. The Appellants sub-contracted a part of the said work to Cherian Varkey Construction (First Respondent) duirng the same year without any provision for reference to arbitration. II) M/s Cherian Varkey Construction filed a suit against the appellant for recovery Rs 2‚10‚70‚881/- along with interest of 18% per annum. In the suit an order of attachment was made in
Free Alternative dispute resolution Dispute resolution Civil procedure
parts of a larger transaction. Liability may be attached where at some point in the series of acts‚ the accused has the necessary mens rea even if the mens rea does not coincide precisely in time with act causing death. Argument by the appellant: The appellant contended that the two acts done were separate acts. The first act was done accompanied by mens rea which did not caused the death but the second act that caused death. They argued that the second act was not accompanied by mens rea‚ therefore
Premium Causality Death Criminal law