Speaking - Law Dictionary Search Results
Home Dictionary Name: speakingSpeaking order
Speaking order, an order which contains matter which is explanatory; or illustravite of the mere direction which is given by it.Speaking order, is one which, on mere perusal, springs to one's mind as being erroneous and does not require a careful and elaborate argument to establish that there has been an error of law, Sita Devi v. Commissioner of Bhagalpur, AIR 1957 Pat 57....
speaking
speaking : addressing matters not set forth in the pleadings [a demurrer] [a motion] ...
Home speaking
Direct forcible and effective speaking...
Speaking demurrer
Speaking demurrer, one in which new facts, which did not appear upon the face of a bill in equity, were introduced to support a demurrer. See 1 Dan. Ch. Pr., 5th Edn. 538. See now DEMURRER....
Hybrid award
Hybrid award, which are neither speaking awards nor non-speaking - partly speaking and partly non-speaking awards. If the award made by the arbitrator is a non-speaking one the difficulty of showing that there is an error apparent on the face of the award becomes insurmountable and ordinarily such award cannot be challenged at all unless it is shown that the arbitrator has wholly travelled outside the contract which gives him the jurisdiction. In cases of speaking awards the court can interfere if there is an error apparent on the face of the award itself, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. .K. Ahuja and Co., IR 2001 SC 1179 (1182): (2001) 4 SCC 86....
Res ipsa loquitur
Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), a phrase used in actions for injury by negligence where no proof of negligence is required beyond the accident itself, which is such as necessarily to involve negligence, e.g., a collision between two trains upon a railway: see Carpue v. London, Brighton, and South Coast Ry. Co., (1844) 5 Ex. 787.Res ipsa loquitur (thing speaks for itself) is a principle which, in reality, belongs to the law of torts, Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848 (1851).The thing speaks for itself.This maxim is applicable in actions for injury by negligence where no proof of negligence is required beyond the accident itself, which is such as necessarily to involve negligence-- e.g., where a ship in motion collides with a ship at anchor. It ought not to be applied unless the facts proved are more consistent with negligence in the defendant than with a mere accident; nor ought it to be applied to evidence of an unexplained accident, if the evidence is...
Contempt of court
Contempt of court, means civil contempt or criminal contempt.--A disobedience to or disregard of the rules, orders, process, or dignity of a Court, which has power to punish for such offence by committal. Contempts are either direct, which only insult or resist the powers of the Court, or the persons of the judges who preside there; or consequential, which, without such gross insolence or direct opposition, plainly tend to create a universal disregard of their authority. Contempts may be divided into acts of contempt committed in the Court itself (in facie curi') and out of Court. Among the former are all unseemly behaviour (for which, and which only (see Reg. v. Lefroy, (1873) LR 8 QB 134), there is an express power to punish by s. 162 of the (English) County Courts Act, 1888), as talking boisterously, applauding any part of the proceedings, refusing to be sworn or to answer a question as a witness, interfering with the business of the Court on the part of a person who has no right to...
Cross-examination
Cross-examination, the examination of a witness by the opposite side, generally after examination in chief, but some times without such examination; as in the case of an examination on the voir dire, which is in the nature of a cross-examination (see VOIR DIRE); and also if one party calls a witness,and he is sworn, the other party may cross-examine him, although the party who has called him put no question at all to him. Some times questions in cross-examination are allowed by the judge after re-examination. See RE-EXAMINATION. And if a witness be called to prove some preliminary and collateral matter only, as the handwriting of a document tendered in evidence, he is a witness in the cause, and may be cross-examined as to any of the issues in the cause.As to theform of the cross-examination, leading questions are allowed, which is not the case in examination in chief.The questions must be relevant to the issue (see infra), but great latitude is allowed, as a question seemingly irrelev...
Voluntarily
Voluntarily, a person is said to cause an effect 'voluntarily' when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it. (Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 39)Intentionally; without coercion, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edn., p. 1569.The crux of making statement voluntarily is, what is intentional, intended, unimpelled by other influences, acting on one's own will, through his own conscience. Such confessional statements are made mostly out of a thirst to speak the truth which at a given time predominates in the heart of the confessor which implies him to speak out the truth. Internal compulsion of the conscience to speak out the truth normally emerges when one is in despondency or in perilous situation when he wants to shed his cloak of guilt and nothing but disclosing the truth would dawn on him. It sometimes becomes so powerful that he is ready to face all consequences for...
Voluntary, voluntary confession
Voluntary, voluntary confession, the crux of mak-ing a statement voluntarily is, what is intentional, intended, unimpelled by other influences, acting on one's own will, through his own conscience. Such confessional statements are made mostly out of a thirst to speak the truth which at a given time predominates in the heart of the confessor which impels him to speak out the truth. Internal compulsion of the conscience to speak out the truth normally emerges when one is in despondency or in a perilous situation when he wants to shed his cloak of guilt and nothing but disclosing the truth would dawn on him. It sometimes becomes so powerful that he is ready to face all consequences for clearing his heart, Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2002) 5 SCC 234 (260): AIR 2002 SC 1661. [Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preven-tion) Act, 1987, s. 15]...
- << Prev.
- Next >>
Sign-up to get more results
Unlock complete result pages and premium legal research features.
Start Free Trial