Attorney - Judgment Search Results

Attorney-general of Alberta Vs. Attorney-general of Canada, and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Maugham: This is an appeal by the Attorney-General of Alberta from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada (Duff C.J., Cannon, Crocket, Davis, Kerwin and

Attorney-general of Ontario Vs. Attorney-general of Canada and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1937PC99

a construction of the section which the words do not bear. Nothing in the section gives either the Attorney-General of Canada, or the Director of Public Prosecutions, any authority other than to commence proceedings in accordance with

Attorney-general of Canada and Another Vs. Attorney-general of the Pro ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Porter: In this matter consolidated appeals are brought to the Judicial Committee by the Attorney General of the Canada and the Bank of Montreal from a judgment of the Court of King's Bench

Attorney-general of Alberta Vs. Attorney-general of Canada and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1943PC76

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: This appeal by special leave is presented by the Attorney-General of Alberta against the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated 2nd December 1941, which answered certain

Attorney - General of Alberta Vs. Attorney - General of Canada and Ano ...

Court: Privy Council

Viscount Simon: In this matter consolidated appeals by the Attorney - General of Alberta and the Attorney - General of Canada respectively are brought before the Board from

Attorney-general of Ontario and Others Vs. Attorney-general of Canada ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1947PC206

the exclusive legislative competence of the legislature of such Province." [6] From this judgment of the Court the Attorneys-General of Ontario, British Columbia and New Brunswick have by special leave brought this appeal which the Attorney-General of

Attorney-general of British Columbia Vs. Attorney-general of Canada an ...

Court: Privy Council

Matched in: Parties Attorney-general of British Columbia Vs. Attorney-general of Canada and Others

Attorney-general of Canada Vs. Attorney-general of Ontario and Others

Court: Privy Council

with both these learned Judges that the position must be accepted as expounded by Lord Haldane in the Attorney-General of British Columbia v. the Attorney-General of Canada ([1914] AC 153=83 LJ PC 169=110 LT 484=30 TLR 144),

Advocate General of Madras Vs. Amanullakhan, Advocate, Salem 1

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1967Mad162; 1967CriLJ551

is Sri Amanullakhan, a member of the Salem Bar, and the proceedings have been initiated by the learned Advocate General under S. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 32 of 1952 and Art. 215 of the

Advocate-general of Madras Vs. Sri Amanullakhan, Advocate

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1966)2MLJ219

is Sri Amanullakhan, a member of the Salem Bar, and the proceedings have been initiated by the learned Advocate-General under Section 3 of the. Contempt of Courts Act, XXXII of 1952 and Article 215 of the Constitution