CHOON v GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA In this case the appellant had been arrested and detained under a warrant issued under the provisions of the Restricted Residence Enactment. The appellant had not been produced before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours of his arrest. He claimed damages but it was held that no action could be brought against the police officer as he was acting in compliance with a warrant issued by a competent authority. The appellant appealed but before the appeal was heard the Federal
Premium Law Malaysia Appeal
and CALLINAN JJ ERMOGENOUS‚ Spyridon APPELLANT v GREEK ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF SA INC RESPONDENT 3. BRIEF STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS. [1] The appellant alleged that he had been employed by the respondent since 18 March 1970 but had not received any entitlements to annual leave or long service leave upon termination of his employment in December 1993. The Magistrate from the Industrial Relations Court of South Australia found in favour of the appellant in the first instance but the Supreme
Premium Appeal Contract Supreme Court of the United States
presence of weapons should not constitute section 230 (d)‚ as he believes that it imposes a certain degree of absolute criminal liability when it shouldn’t apply‚ as Vaillancourt had no mens rea present. Summary of The Facts The accomplice of the appellant
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law United States Constitution
there was an error in law made. Holy Cross Parish‚ the appellant‚ has made it known that the contractors they hired failed to disclose any information pertaining the damages and irregularities. The appellant had the idea that the job would be performed correctly and no issues were brought to their eyes. The contractor also knew of the issues but did not inform anything to the appellant which was misleading. Also the architect and the appellant had a fiduciary relationship but because he remained silent
Premium Management Employment Project management
dated 23-6-2004 granted graded / running / regular pay as well as seniority from 27-7-1991 in this letter it is clearly mentioned “that those employees are considered regular from the date from where they have been given graded pay”. According to appellant when he was getting graded pay from 27-7-1991‚ from this date he was granted seniority‚ but now the honorable Secretary to the KPK finance Deptt. Vide letter No. FD(PRC) 5-2-2002 dated Peshawar the 30-10-2009 in the light of the decision of honorable
Premium Supreme Court of the United States The Honourable According to Jim
Lord Wright and Sir Lancelot Sandreson. The appellant: Richard Thorold Grant The material facts of the case: The underwear‚ consisting of two pairs of underpants and two siglets was bought by appellant at the shop of the respondents. The retailer had purchased them with other stock from the manufacturer. The appellant put on one suit and by the evening he felt itching on the ankles. Next day a redness appeared on each ankle. The appellant treated himself with calomine lotion but the irritation
Premium Clothing Supreme Court of the United States Supreme court
An Analysis of The Term Actually Incurred In Section 11(a) of Income Tax Action Act No 58 of 1962 A TECHNICAL REPORT TO BE PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BATCHELOR OF COMMERCE (HONOURS) DEGREE IN TAXATION BY
Premium Tax Taxation in the United States Foreign exchange market
agreement was entered into between the Mills Company and the appellants appointing the appellants it’s Agents for a period of 30 years. The appellants throughout worked only as the Agents of the Mills Company and for the Fasli years 1351 and 1352 they received their remuneration under the terms of the Agency agreement. Notice was sent to the appellants to pay the amount of tax appertaining to these chargeable accounting periods. The appellants submitted their accounts and contended that the remuneration
Premium Contract Agency
COURT (KUALA LUMPUR) DECIDED-DATE-1: 7 DECEMBER 2000 FAIZA TAMBY CHIK J 2.1 Overview of the case PROFIT FROM SALE OF SHARES IN A PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NOT SUBJECT TO REAL PROPERTY GAINS TAX The taxpayer‚ Binastra Holding Sdn Bhd (‘the appellant’)‚ had been assessed under para 34A of Sch 2 of the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 ( ’RPGTA ’) for an amount of RM173‚000‚ inclusive of penalty by the Director General of Inland Revenue (‘DGIR’). The Appellant’s appeals had previously been dismissed
Free Tax Taxation Income
Michael Anthony L. Leachon Obligation and Contracts Case Digests PNB VS CA 315 SCRA 309 FACTS: * October 23‚ 1990 Lily S. Pujol opened an account with the petitioner PNB(Mandaluyong branch.) She applied for a “combo account” under her business name “Pujol Trading.” This account is a combination of a savings and current account wherein if there are insufficient funds in the current account of the owner then the funds of the savings fund will be used. PNB thereafter‚ issued a passbook with
Premium Contract Money Trial court