Co V Prabhu - Law Dictionary Search Results
Corporation
1908), s. 20 Expl. II] Has no right under Art. 19 of the Constitution of India, Tata Engineering Co. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 40. Has a legal entity separate from that of its holders, Chiranji
Precedent
equality of votes, in the negative, and nothing but an Act of Parliament will remove them, London Tramways Co. v. London County Council, 1898 AC 75. The deci-sions of a judge at Nisi Prius are not considered binding.
Goods
SCC 200; State of Andhra Pradesh v. National Thermal Power Corpn. Ltd., (2002) 5 SCC 203; McKinley Telephone Co. v. Cumberland Telephone Co., 152 Wis 359: 140 NW 38: 1913 Wisc Lexis 77. Means chery kind of movable
Keep your definitions linked to case research
Interest
to have effect. For the law on these repealed ss. 28 and 29, see L.C. & D. Ry. Co. v. S.E. Ry. Co., (1892) 1 CH, p. 146; Re Edwards, (1891) 61 LJ Ch 22; and London, Chatham
Partition
For an order for partition of a wall separating the gardens of two adjoining houses, see Mayfair Property Co. v. Johnson, (1894) 1 Ch 508. By the (English) Partition Act, 1868, now repealed, it was provided (s. 3)
Copyright
works (s. 17), Government publications (s. 18), mechanical contrivances for reproducing sounds (s. 19); and see Chappell & Co. v. Columbia Gramophone Co., (1914) 1 KB 395, political speeches (s. 20); and see Walter v. Lane, 1900 AC
Trial
before a court that has proper jurisdiction, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edn., p. 1348; see also C.&.S.F. Rly. Co. v. Smit, Okl, 270 P 2d 629 (633); Pulaski v. State, 23 Wis. 2d 138, 126, N.W. 2d 625
Ultra vires
an ordinary person can do [Wenlock (Baroness) v. River Dee Co., (1885) 10 AC 354; British South Africa Co. v. De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd., (1910) 1 Ch 354], subject to the consequences if the act is prohibited
Penalty
Penalty, is a liability under the taxing statute, Khemka & Co. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 1549. Penalty, is legal or official punishment such as a term of
Judgment
the appeal on any ground, therefore, the order in question is not a judgment, Chalavada Venkata Subbarao and Co v. Grandhi Sree Amulu, AIR 1965 AP 16. In order to constitute a 'judgment' within the ambit of clause
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Try the research workspace - 7 days free