Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and ors. “The legal position is to be well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed‚ the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the Interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so
Free Judge Court Jury
A.C. No. 5955 September 8‚ 2009 JOHN CHRISTEN S. HEGNA‚ Complainant‚ vs. ATTY. GOERING G.C. PADERANGA‚ Respondent. PETITIONER’S (COMPLAINANT) CLAIM: RESPONDENT’S CLAIM: ISSUE/S: is Atty. Paderanga guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct? RULING: A.C. No. 5955 September 8‚ 2009 JOHN CHRISTEN S. HEGNA‚ Complainant‚ vs. ATTY. GOERING G.C. PADERANGA‚ Respondent. D E C I S I O N DEL CASTILLO‚ J.: Before this Court is a letter-complaint1 dated
Premium Defendant Prima facie Plaintiff
Greatest happiness principle (Ch. 2) 4. Cost-benefit analysis (Ch. 2) 5. Care ethics (Ch. 2) 6. Intuitionism (Ch. 3) 7. Divine Command Theory (Ch. 3) 8. Good will (Kant‚ Ch. 3) 9. Practical imperative (Kant‚ Ch. 3) 10. Prima facie duties (Ross‚ Ch. 3) 11. Virtue ethics (Ch. 4) 12. Happiness (Aristotle‚ Ch. 4) 13. Habit (Aristotle‚ Ch. 4) 14. Virtue as a mean (Aristotle‚ Ch. 4) 15. Excellence‚ de (Confucius‚ Ch. 4) 16. Mengzi on human nature (Confucius‚ Ch. 4)
Premium Morality Ethics Utilitarianism
INDIAN COMPETITION ACT The Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act‚ 1969 is the first enactment to deal with competition issues and came into effect on 1st June 1970. With the liberalization of the economy and the re-definition of the role of the State and of the private sector in the Indian economy‚ competition policy in India and its governing legal-regulatory framework needed revisiting. The MRTPA was limited in its efficacy and was found inadequate. Consequently‚ a comprehensive
Premium Competition law
Toy Company Memo To: CEO From: Ken Dilger CC: Date: 1/22/2012 Re: Employee Lawsuit In 1964 Congress passed a Civil Rights law that outlawed major forms for discrimination against African Americans and women. One of the major features of this law was Title VII which prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race‚ color‚ religion‚ sex or national origin. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion
Premium Religion Employment Faith
client was advised of the reporting requirements- ‘harm to self and other’. National Privacy Principle September 2001 http://www.privacy.gov.au/law/act/npp http://www.privacy.gov.au/materials/types/download/8774/6582 Schedule 3‚ 2e&f IV) Prima facie personal values- client autonomy vs. non maleficience and fidelity. V) Discuss case with other senior practitioners VI) Discuss case with industry body VII) Obtain legal advice. ACTION PLAN 1) Advise client that you have a requirement by
Premium Ethics Sexual intercourse HIV
established‚ common law remedies will be available whether that produces a fair result or not. By contrast‚ equitable remedies are discretionary and the court will not grant them if it feels that the plaintiff is unworthy‚ notwithstanding that prima facie he has established and equitable right or interest. The maxim that he who seeks equity must do equity together with the next maxims‚ concerning delay‚ are aspects
Premium Common law Contract
The topic I chose is Euthanasia. Euthanasia has two sides‚ a positive and a negative‚ which I will discuss and elaborate on. Euthanasia is often called “mercy killing”. It is intentionally making someone die‚ rather than allowing that person to die naturally. It is sometimes the act of ending someone’s life‚ who is terminally ill‚ or is suffering in severe pain. Euthanasia is mostly illegal in the world today. Euthanasia can be considered a form of suicide‚ if the person afflicted with the problem
Free Death Euthanasia Pain
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center. INC.‚ 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976). Facts: Mrs. Mitchell (appellee) was terminated on June 4‚ 1974 from Lovington Good Samaritan Center‚ INC. for alleged misconduct. June 12‚ 1974 Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits where she was denied by the deputy of the Unemplyment Security Commission; July 24 1974‚ Mrs. Mitchell applied for an appeal‚ where she then received a reinstatement of benefits on August 28 1974. On September
Premium Appeal Law Court
The Doctrine of Double Effect states that it is a morally relevant difference between those bad consequences we aim and intend to bring about‚ and those that we do not intend but still foresee as a likely outcome of our actions. Under certain circumstances‚ it is morally acceptable to risk certain outcomes that would not be acceptable to intend. Though it is always wrong to kill innocents deliberately‚ this doctrine says‚ it is sometimes permissible to allow certain actions to occur understanding
Premium Laws of war Ethics Nuclear weapon