FACTS (Facts of case in brief) There are two parties in this case; the appellant is Kamil and brothers a registered partnership firm and the respondent is Central Dairy Farm‚ Uttar Pradesh Pashu Dhan Uddyog Nigam Limited. A contract is awarded to the appellant for the supply of 30000 live sheep and goats to the respondent @ Rs. 786/- per quintal. The contract was stipulated for a period of one year. The appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 260000/- as security for the good performance of the
Premium Court Appeal Appellate court
which led to the following disputes. There were a set of complaints and hence it becomes essential to only focus on therelevant issues and facts realted to our analysis and stick to facts in gist. It has been found and is not disputed that the appellant carried on business in fertiliser and foodgrains under licence issued by the appropriate authorities. Its premises were visited by the Police Inspector‚
Premium Constitution of India Law Government of India
C.A. No. 299 March 18‚ 1946 FELIX ADAN‚ plaintiff-appellant‚ vs. AGAPITO CASILI and VICTORIA ADAN‚ defendants-appellees. OZAETA‚ J.: The plaintiff Felix Adan commenced this action in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur against his sister Victoria Adan and the latter’s husband‚ Agapito Casili‚ to secure the judicial partition of the estate left by their deceased mother‚ Simplicia Nepomuceno‚ alleged to consist of six parcels of land which are specifically described in
Premium Plaintiff Defendant Complaint
Lord Jauncey commented on the anomaly that the appellant had mentioned. The anomaly being that unlike a sheriff principal having served for less than ten years‚ a sheriff principal who has been removed from office for being unfit for service due to inability having served for longer than ten years would not be paid an annuity. Lord Jauncey said “Why such a distinction was drawn is not obvious.” He also thinks that although the addition of the fourth proviso to section 20 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland)
Premium Law United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Jan. 26‚ 2011 (1st Division)‚ J. Velasco Jr. Facts: That on or about the 15th day of June 2005‚ a buy-bust operation was conducted at KFC Welcome Rotonda. Accused-appellant unlawfully sold 0.12 gm. of white crystalline substance and she was found to be in possession and control of 0.27 gm. of the same substance. The accused-appellant was arrested and the buy-bust money was recovered from her by PO3 Magcalayo. PO3 Villamor recovered the other two (2) plastic sachets also from her. The latter then
Premium Stare decisis Law Supreme Court of the United States
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR ROONEY v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2012 MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT i TABLE OF CONTENTS Index of Authorities .................................................................................................... iii Statement of Jurisdiction.............................................................................................. iv Statement of Facts .........................................................................................
Premium Questioned document examination Expert witness Expert
1. Indian Airlines Corporation vs Sm. Madhuri Chowdhuri And Ors. on 27 May‚ 1964 The suit arose out of an unfortunate and tragic air crash at Nagpur when a Dakota air plane VT-CHF crashed soon after it started flying from Nagpur to Madras. All the passengers and the crew were killed and the only person who escaped with severe injuries and burns was the Pilot‚ Desmond Arthur James Cartner. This accident took place on the 12th December‚ 1953 at about 3-25 a.m. In that Aircraft travelled one Sunil
Premium Indira Gandhi International Airport Star Alliance Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport
FAMOUS CASES ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT* LIABILITY OF PAYING BANKER WHEN CUSTOMER’S SIGNATURE ON CHEQUE IS FORGED 1. When the customer’s signature on the cheque is forged there is no mandate to the bank to pay. As such a banker is not entitled to debit the customer’s account on such forged cheque. In Canara Bank vs. Canara Sales Corporation and Others [(1987)2 Supreme Court Cases 666] the company has a current account with the bank which was operated by the Company’s Managing Director
Premium Cheque Bank Credit card
Relevant Facts and Relevant Issues ’Appellants were employed by the respondent as baggage handler at Sydney Airport‚ they were dismissed from their employment’ for stealing funds. ’Appellants sought an order for imposition of penalty and payment of penalty to them.’ Trial judge found out respondents in ’terminating the appellants’ employment was not harsh‚ unjust or unreasonable and dismissed the claims.’ ’The Full Court held that it was contrary however appellants were still not entitled to damages
Premium Contract Termination of employment Employment
Case Name‚ Citation‚ and Court: TRACO‚ INC.‚ A THREE RIVERS ALUMINUM COMPANY‚ Appellant v. ARROW GLASS CO.‚ INC.‚ Appellee Appeal No. 04-90-00382-CV COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS‚ Fourth District‚ San Antonio Key Facts Traco Inc is an aluminum company that supplies pre-engineered aluminum and glass sliding doors and windows. Arrow Glass Company is a subcontractor who initially brought suit against Traco on the theories of promissory estoppel and negligence for Traco’s failure to supply aluminum
Premium Law Jury Appeal