1 MLJ 356. The appellants extended loans to the respondents and the loan was secured by documents and guarantees. The documents evidencing the loans showed that the hotel whose shares were being purchased by a company had given financial assistance to that company. This act contravened Section 67 of the Companies Act 1965. The Court held that: The transactions were tainted with illegalit Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd. v. Hotel Rasa Sayang Sdn. Bhd. & Anor[1990] 1 MLJ 356. The appellants extended loans
Premium Bond Debt Platoon
RESPONDENT 1. Whether there is any privity of contract between the Appellant and the Respondents In the previous judgement the court had decided that there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondents since the general rule under the common law is that there is no privity of contract between the employer and the sub- contractor. The previous court has made a reference to the case of Royden (M) Sdn. Bhd V. Syarikat Pembenaan Yeoh Tiong Lay Sdn Bhd where the
Premium Common law Contract Judge
Citation: Marien v Gardiner [2013] NSWCA 396 Court: Macfarlan‚ Meagher and Emmett JJA‚ panel of judges of the New South Wales Supreme Court of Appeal Material Facts: Shortly after five o’clock in the morning on 3 February 2009‚ Mr Gardiner was walking on Centenary Avenue with his back to oncoming traffic‚ approximately four to six metres from the southern kerb. There was an absence of natural light‚ and only one streetlight‚ which Mr Gardiner had already passed [5]. On the same morning
Free Common law Law Tort
Case Note & CritiqueMasciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58 Case Note Appellant: Mr. Giovanni MasciantonioRespondent: The Queen Court & Year: High Court of Australia 1994 - 1995 Relevant Facts: Appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria. 19 June 1991 Giovanni Masciantonio had a heated altercation with his son-in-law Maurizio Femia. Altercation resulted in Mr. Femia’s life. Fatal wound being a severed aorta (known as wound 5). Giovanni Masciantonio was convicted of murder in the
Premium Court Law Judge
R. V Kiranjit Ahluwalia [1993] 96 Cr. APP. R. 133 Court of Appeal Introduction In this case‚ R. V Kiranjit Ahluwalia1‚ the appellant is kiranjit Ahluwalia and the respondent is Regina (the Crown). The Legal issue in the case was whether the use of provocation as a defense could stand as she had sufficient time to consider her action and also if it could stand as a defence to person who has suffered
Premium Jury Law Domestic violence
The Managing Director‚ Hassan Co-operative Milk Producer’s Society Union Limited ...Appellant Versus The Assistant Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation ...Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3817 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3455 of 2008) JUDGEMENT R.M. Lodha‚ J. Leave granted. 2. These two appeals‚ by special leave‚ are concerned with the liability of the appellants to pay ESI contribution in respect of the workers employed by the contractors in performance
Premium Employment
The appellant initially denied having possession of the firearm. However‚ upon being informed that somebody reported that he had in his possession an unlicensed firearm‚ the appellant admitted that he was really keeping a firearm given by former barrio lieutenant Pantaleon Garcia. Appellant was later taken to the municipal building‚ where the appellant expressly and voluntarily admitted that he received a gun from Pantaleon Garcia and then hid it by burying the can containing it. Appellant insists
Premium Trial court Criminal law Appeal
plaintiff-appellee‚ vs. EDUARDO GELAVER‚ accused-appellant. Facts: At 7:00 a.m. of March 24‚ 1988‚ Randy Mamon heard shouts coming from the house of Tessie Lampedario in Barangay Poblacion‚ Municipality of Sto. Niño‚ South Cotabato. He saw the appellant and a woman having a heated argument. Thereafter‚ appellant held the neck of the victim‚ dragged her and with a knife on his right hand‚ stabbed the latter three times on the breast. Appellant then went out of the gate and fled in the direction
Premium Marriage Criminal law Family
and how to assess the reasonableness of institutional delay. Some of the factors that the Supreme Court considers in regards to whether a delay is reasonable or not includes reasons for the delay‚ length of the delay‚ prejudicial effect on the Appellant and any waiver of time periods. In R v. Morin‚ on behalf of the majority‚ Sopinka J. explained that depending on the presence or absence of prejudice‚ the administrative guidelines for institutional delay could be adjusted. Between committal and
Premium Law Supreme Court of the United States Crime
Thomas Midkiff * Title: U.S. v. Wise‚ 221 F.3d 140 (5th Cir. 2000) * Facts: John Cain met employee Oliver Dean Emigh (“Emigh”) and owner John Roberts at the Bargain Barn in March of 1998. John Cain (“Cain”) was a self-employed computer consultant. John Roberts (“Roberts”) explained to Cain that he needed documents typed for Republic of Texas (“ROT”) legal matters due to being a member of the ROT. Cain met with Johnie Wise and Roberts the next day at the Bargain Barn to discuss
Premium United States Federal Bureau of Investigation