Westlaw India Delivery Summary Request made by : |IP USER 1| Request made on:|Tuesday‚ 06 November‚ 2012 at 18:02 IST| || Content Type:| > ... > B| Title : |Bina Murlidhar Hemdev and Others v Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev and Others| Delivery selection:|Current Document| Number of documents delivered:|1| 2012 Thomson Reuters (Legal) Limited Bina Murlidhar Hemdev and Others v Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev and Others Supreme Court of India 14 May 1999 Appeal (civil) 3141 of 1999 The Judgment
Premium
Introduction to Occupier’s Liability in Singapore Occupier’s liability refers to the liability of an occupier of premises arising from the defective conditions or unsafe activities on the premises which result in injury or damage to the plaintiff. In Industrial Commercial Bank v Tan Swa Eng His Honour Lai Kew Chai J rightly held that “the law of occupiers’ liability in Singapore is derived from English common law”. However‚ statues on occupier’s liability in the England are not applicable to
Premium Law Tort Common law
constitutionally restricting certain types of hate speech. The court was to hear a case that spoke to one specific Virginia state statute that prohibited cross burning with the intent to intimidate‚ and also rendered that any such burning shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group. This court would see this statute being used between two separate cases. The first case was against Barry Black; in August of 1998 Black led a Ku Klux Klan rally at which the conclusion resulted
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
injunction in the suit against the defendant. Issues Involved Whether prima facie expression “Sugar Free” is a coined word or not or in other words whether the plaintiff can at all claim "Sugar Free" as a trademark or not? Whether a considerable degree of distinctiveness of expression “Sugar Free” in relation to plaintiff’s products was prima facie recognized in the defendant’s product or not? Whether a prima facie case of misrepresentation was made out against the defendant to show his intention
Premium Trademark Sweeteners
Case law review: Section 10- Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design Subject: Law of Evidence Submitted To: Dr. K. Vidyullatha Reddy Submitted By: Mohammed Omer Farooq 3rd Year‚ 5th Semester Roll No: 2011-46 National Academy for Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University of Law‚ Hyderabad Table of Contents Table of Cases Arul Raja v. State of T.N 9 Balmokond v. Emperor 3 Barindra Kumar Ghose v. Emperor
Premium Prima facie Jury Common law
Marquis argues that killing a fetus deprives it of a valuable future/future like ours‚ and concludes by saying abortion is not morally permissible. I agree with Marquis’s argument that it is wrong to kill a fetus through abortion because I believe that they have a valuable future as all humans do. Abortion is defined as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy‚ which is most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. (dictionary.com) Furthermore I do agree with Marquis that majority
Premium Pregnancy Abortion Fetus
1. Definitions: a. Consequentialist a.i. An ethical theory that claims that the rightness and wrongness of human action is exclusively a function of the goodness and badness of the consequences resulting directly from that action. b. Deontological b.i. The rightness and wrongness of human actions is not exclusively a function of the goodness and badness of consequences c. Act-Utilitarianism c.i. A person ought to act so as to produce the greatest balance of good over evil‚ everyone considered
Premium Ethics Immanuel Kant Morality
Company has a separate legal entity from its members‚ can sue or be sued on its own behalf. As illustrated in Foss v Harbottle (1843)‚ the proper plaintiff is the company itself. In other words‚ directors have the power to decide whether or not to sue in protection of the company. However‚ very often‚ the persons who commit misconduct are the major controller of the company and improbable to permit the company to sue. A common law right is therefore reserved for shareholders to sue the wrongdoers
Free Common law Law
Disparate treatment means unequal behavior toward someone because of a protected characteristic‚ and it is protected under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act. A disparate treatment violation occurs when an individual of a protected group is shown to have been singled out and treated less favorably than others in a similar situation on the basis of a characteristic that is protected under Title VII. For a disparate treatment claim to be upheld in court it must be plausible and shows that the employer
Premium Evidence Racism Discrimination
victim of reverse discrimination when Rosa Wright‚ a less qualified black woman‚ was promoted to the Quality Assurance and Training Specialist position at her job. The judge dismissed the claim‚ finding that Lucas did not make out a prima facie case (Open Jurist‚ 2011). Statement of the Problem Both Julia Lucas‚ a white woman‚ and Rosa Wright‚ a black woman‚ work for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). They both applied for Quality Assurance and Training
Premium Discrimination Racism Prima facie