Sachin V New - Law Dictionary Search Results
Occupation
work, profession, job, principal activity, employment, business or a calling in which an individual is engaged, Sodan Singh v. New Delh Municipal Committee, (1989) 4 SCC 155. Is defined as 'an activity in which one engages' or a
Wilful
said that the word wilful suggests bad conduct or action though it does not necessarily connote blame, Wheeler v. New Merton Board Mills, (1933) 2 KB 669. Not infrequently the word has been used to mean that the
Publish
and issue to the public. (3) To communicate to a third person, Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edn.; C.C.E. v. New Tobacco Co., (1998) 8 SCC 250. Publish, means to make generally accessible or available; to place before or
Keep your definitions linked to case research
Rent
by the landlord in favour of the tenant, Banarsides v. Ram Krishna, AIR 1995 MP 147; H.S. Rikhy v. New Delhi Municipality, AIR 1962 SC 554. Rent, includes all that is payable as consideration for the tenancy. The
Penalty
of the offending party: the essence of liquidated damages is a genuine covenanted pre-estimate of loss, Dunlop Co. v. New Garage Co., 1915 AC 79; approved in Widnes Foundry (1925) Ltd. v. Cellulose Acetate Co. Ltd., (1931) 2
Terrorism
Terrorism, as ordinarily understood, means the act of terrorising, Muralidhar Sarangi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 466. It may be possible to describe 'terrorism' as use of
Evidence
to when evidence of collateral facts is admissible, see Hales v. Kerr, (1908) 2 KB 601; Butterley Co. v. New Hucknall Colliery Co., (1909) 1 Ch 37. As to acts showing a continuous course of conduct, see R.
Vest
It will depend on the context in which it is used in a particular piece of legislation, Dayawanti v. New Delhi Municipality, AIR 1982 Del 534. [See also Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, s. 193(2)]
Licence and lease
1 SCR 368. The occupier paying 'rent' may be a licensee and not a tenant, Dr. H.S. Rikhy v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1962 SC 554.
Executor de son tort.
be brought against him, 1 Wms. Exors.; and see Peters v. Leeder, (1878) 47 LJ QB 573; A.-G. v. New York Breweries Co., 1899 AC 62. As to his liability in respect of a term of years of
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Try the research workspace - 7 days free