Did you mean: 2003 8 sec 7453?
2003 8 Scc 7453 - Law Dictionary Search Results
Actus curiae neminem gravabit.
O.J. Coelho, (2001) 4 SCC 181; AIR 2001 SC 1084; South Eastern Coolfiels v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2003) 8 SCC 648 (664); Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2003) 8 SCC 559 (564).
Appeal
right on the material which the court had before it, State of Gujarat v. Salimbhai Abdul Gaffar Shaikh, (2003) 8 SCC 50: AIR 2003 SC 3224. Means a call to (higher tribunal) for deliverance from decision of lower, Oxford
Consultation
which consultation was to be made would stand satisfied, Chairman & M.D. BPL Ltd. v. S.P. Guru Raju, (2003) 8 SCC 567. Does not mean concurrence and the views of the Board are ascertained for the purpose of assisting
Keep your definitions linked to case research
Negligence
such other person suffers injury, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, AIR 2003 SC 4182 (4184): (2003) 8 SCC 731. (Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, s. 168). [s. 81, ill. (a), I.P.C.] As a tort is the breach
Malice
(1991) (4) SCC 54 followed, Chairman and MD BPL Ltd. v. S.P. Gururaja, AIR 2003 SC 4536 (4542): (2003) 8 SCC 567. Malice, in legal sense, means malice such as may be assumed for a wrongful act intentionally but
Grounds
enable him to make an effective representation against the order of detention, Union of India v. Paul Manickam, (2003) 8 SCC 342: AIR 2003 SC 4622 (4625). (Constitution of India, Art. 22)
Fraud
can be evidence on fraud, Ram Preeti Yadav v. Uttar Pradesh, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, (2003) 8 SCC 311: AIR 2003 SC 4268 (4271). Fraud, is false representation by one who is aware that it was
Confession
maker, if its admissibility is not excluded by some provision of law, Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 461. Includes a statement intended by the maker to be exculpatory or neutral and which appears to be
Adequate and special reasons
depend upon several factors and no straitjacket formula can be imposed, Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2003) 8 SCC 551 (558). (Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 376) --the expression 'adequate and special reasons'[ indicates that it is
Consent
cannot be said in law, to have suffered sexual intercourses with consent, Tulshidas Kanalkar v. State of Goa, (2003) 8 SCC 590 (592). [Penal Code 1860, ss. 376 and 506(2)] The concept and dimensions of 'consent' in the con-text
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Try the research workspace - 7 days free