Skip to content

44 1 - Law Dictionary Search Results

Research workspace

Save terms and build your research trail

A free trial unlocks notes, tags, search history, and the full AI Studio desk for judgment research.

Up to October 1, 1984

Up to October 1, 1984, the expression 'up to October 1, 1984' in the direction for regularisation obviously does no include appointments

Testimaignes ne potent testifie le negative, mes I affirmative

Testimaignes ne potent testifie le negative, mes I affirmative, witness cannot testify to a negative; they must testify to an affirmative

Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-s. (1)

not intended to cut down the generality of the meaning of the preceding provision, King-Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji, 1945 FCR 195: AIR 1945 PC 156; Shiv Kirpal Singh v. V.V. Giri, AIR 1970 SC 2097 (2112): (1970)

Keep your definitions linked to case research

Policy Proof of Interest (P.P.I.) (English)

interest. Such a policy in the absence of an insur-able interest is made void by the Gaming Act, 1845. The Marine Insurance Act, 1906 (s. 4), specifically declares such policies void. The Marine Insurance (Gambling Policies) Act,

Jus

Civile--and the whole body of law peculiar to any state is its Jus Civile (Cic. De Orat. I. 44). The Roman Law, therefore, which is peculiar to the Roman state, is its Jus Civile, sometimes called Jus … it; also respectively opposed to one another by the terms Res Juris Humani et Divini (Instit. Ii. tit. 1). As the components of a single generalization, 'juris-prudential.' The terms Jus Scriptum and Non Scriptum, as explained in

Existing Securities and Exchange Board

of India constituted under the Resolution of the Government of India in the Department of Economic Affairs No. 1(44)SE/86, dated the 12th day of April, 1988. [Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, s. 2 (1)

Betting

the decision in Real v. Anderson, (1884) 13 QBD 779; and see Tatam v. Reeve, (1893) 1 QB 44; and De Mattos v. Benjamin, (1894) 70 LT 560. In the case of a cheque given in payment

Negligence

see Cooke v. Midland Great Western Railway, 1909 AC 229; and Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor, (1922) 1 AC 44. There is also a peculiar duty to take precaution in the case of dangerous Articles, see Dominion Natural

Recruitment

transfer is not unknown, K. Narayanan v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1994 SC 55: (1994) Supp 1 SCC 44. The term 'recruitment' connotes and clearly signifies enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment. Certainly, this is not

Wager

by B. to other persons cannot be recovered by A. from B. [Tatam v. Reeve, (1893) 1 QB 44]. The consideration for a cheque given, or in repayment of a loan made for wagering is bad [Gaming

  • Last »

Try the research workspace - 7 days free


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial