INTRODUCTION: The concept of murder and culpable homicide are arguably the most complicated of provisions within the Indian Penal Code .Culpable homicide and murder closely resembling each other and at times it become difficult to distinguish between the two‚ as the causing of death is common to both. Further‚ there must necessarily be criminal intention or knowledge in both culpable homicide and murder .culpable homicide is the genus‚ murder is its species. However‚ the difference between culpable
Premium Murder Life imprisonment Causality
Page 1 ICLR: Appeal Cases/1897/ARON SALOMON (PAUPER) APPELLANT; AND A. SALOMON AND COMPANY‚ LIMITED RESPONDENTS. BY ORIGINAL APPEAL. AND A. SALOMON AND COMPANY‚ LIMITED APPELLANTS; AND ARON SALOMON RESPONDENT. BY CROSS APPEAL. - [1897] A.C. 22 [1897] A.C. 22 [HOUSE OF LORDS.] ARON SALOMON (PAUPER) APPELLANT; AND A. SALOMON AND COMPANY‚ LIMITED RESPONDENTS. BY ORIGINAL APPEAL. AND A. SALOMON AND COMPANY‚ LIMITED APPELLANTS; AND ARON SALOMON RESPONDENT. BY CROSS APPEAL. 1896 Nov. 16
Premium Corporation Limited liability Appeal
ARTICLE 10 – FREEDOM OF SPEECH‚ ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION ♠ Under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution ‚ 3 rights are given ie o Freedom of speech & expression o Freedom of assembly o Freedom of association Freedom of speech & expression ♠ Freedom of speech is not absolute because of the need to balance the needs/ interests of the society/ community as a whole. Case of PP v Ooi Kee Saik (1971) per Raja Azlan Shah J‚ “ There cannot
Premium Freedom of speech Human rights United States Constitution
8A(1) Criminal Law -- Sedition -- Publication of false news -- Conviction on uncorroborated evidence of one witness -- Whether witness was corroborated by own former statement -- Seditious Act 1948 s 6(1) -- Evidence Act 1950 ss 73A & 157 The appellant was charged with two offences. The first charge was under s 8A(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 for maliciously publishing false news in the form of a pamphlet entitled ’Mangsa Dipenjarakan’. The second charge was under s
Premium Appeal Court Judge
FACTS: Appellee (Midwest Distribution‚ Inc.)‚ who is in the business of setting up cigarette product displays‚ contracted to hire appellant (Moore) in 2001 to work at its Fort Smith office. Upon accepting employment‚ appellant signed an employment contract‚ a “Service work for Hire Agreement” with appellee that contained a non-compete agreement – in which appellant agreed that for one year following the termination of employment‚ he would not compete or provide services in substantially similar
Premium Contract Employment Trial court
The appellant was required to do the presentation and submit the academic write up for her final exam. However she lost all the stored data due to hard disk crashed one day before final date for the academic write up submission. Therefore she only able to submit all of her write up notes copied from Methuen commentary. At first‚ the University’s boards of examiners accused the appellant academic write up for plagiarism. She then told the boards
Premium Law Jury Criminal law
Cases in Canadian Law Dehghani v. Canada: The appellant‚ a citizen of Iran‚ arrived in Canada on May 13‚ 1989‚ and claimed refugee status. After being questioned in the primary examination line‚ he was referred to a secondary examination‚ which involved a long wait‚ and‚ as he did not speak English‚ an interpreter was provided for him. At the secondary interview‚ the appellant omitted significant facts. This case involves two issues that are worthy of analysis‚ as he claims‚ first of all‚ that
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States Canada
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. M/s. L.K. Ahuja & Co. In respect of certain contracts of work assigned by the appellant certain disputes having been arisen‚ the matter was referred to arbitration. Two awards were made and the same were filed in the court of the Civil Judge in two Title (Arbitration) Suits Nos. 37/86 and 40/86. By a common order‚ the trial court made the awards rule of court in entirety and decrees were drawn in terms thereof. An appeal was filed against the said common order before
Premium Arbitration Court Arbitral tribunal
Title: R. v. Hufsky‚ [1988] 1 S.C.R 621 Parties: Werner E. J. Hufsky – Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen - Respondent Decision: Appeal was dismissed Notions/Concepts: Constitutional Law Criminal Law Equality before the law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Arbitrary detention Unreasonable Search Refusal to provide breath sample Facts: Appellant was stopped at a random spot check by police Nothing unusual about his driving at the time of the spot check Spot check was for the purposes
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States
however‚ later agreed with Roberts to buy the wheat at that (high) price but eventually failed to do so. Durant resold it at a loss and sued them for loss. Durant – Plaintiff at court of 1st instance Roberts – appellant in Court of appeal‚ respondent in House of Lords. K & Co – appellant in House of Lords. Issue Whether a contract made by a man purporting and professing to act on his own behalf alone‚ and not on behalf of a principal‚ but having an undisclosed intention to give the benefit of
Premium Appeal Contract