Attorney General - 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 for … the persons entitled thereto." The Act came into force on 28th April 1939. [3] In November 1940, the Attorney-General of Quebec instituted proceedings in the Superior Court alleging that the Bank of Montreal was a "credit institution"

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), … 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), at p. 162, where he says:

Attorney General For India Vs. Satish

Court: Supreme Court of India

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1410 OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.925 OF2021 ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA .... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SATISH AND ANOTHER .... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1411 OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION … JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.1. Leave granted in all appeals.2. The four Appeals filed by the appellants - Attorney General for India, by the National Commission for Women, by the State of Maharashtra and by the appellant-accused Satish

Attorney General of India Vs. Mohd. Saleem Zargar Etc. Etc.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1994SC952; 1994CriLJ1198

ORDER1. The Attorney-General of India has made these motions under Section 11(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.