Bottom of Form Bombay High Court First Appeal No.1076/20 vs Aged 26 Years‚ Occ. : Business on 6 March‚ 2012 Bench: A. B. Chaudhari 1 fa1076.11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH‚ NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.1076/2011 APPELLANT :- Dhiraj Dharamdas Dewani‚ Aged 26 years‚ Occ. : Business‚ Proprietor M/s Dewani Soft Inc. Office situated at 303‚ 3rd Floor‚ Panjwani Market‚ Teen Nal Chowk‚ Itwari‚ Nagpur. ...VERSUS... RESPONDENTS:- 1. M/s Sonal Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. through
Premium Copyright Injunction Pleading
1999 dismissing a complaint filed by the appellant‚ without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case‚ but granting liberty to the appellant to "make a realistic claim" and move the State Commission or the District Forum‚ as the case may be in accordance with law. The National Consumer Forum 1 further directed that time spent before it‚ should be taken into account for purpose of computing period of limitation by the appropriate forum where the appellant moves his complaint‚ With a view to dispose
Premium Consumer protection Party ACT
appeal from the district court of New South Wales‚ concerning negligence. The appellant‚ Carey‚ was riding his bicycle through a public park before sunrise‚ which he did regularly. One morning the appellant took a path he had never cycled on before. He was injured after cycling into a bollard positioned in the middle of the path. The bollard was slightly visible as it was dark blue and the path was unlit. The appellant had crossed the path during the day‚ and had seen the bollard on numerous occasions
Premium Tort law Reasonable person Standard of care
4. Michigan State University vs The Assistant Controller [Intellectual Property Appellate Board] Facts: The original patent titled ‘transgenic plants producing polyhydroxyalkanoates’ with a patent application no. being 661/Del/92. The patent was granted and provided with the no.178865. Later on‚ the Patents office objected due to plurality of distinct inventions and a divisional application was filed u/s 16 of the patents act in 1996 [1699/Del/96]. Another divisional application was filed in 1996
Premium Patent Invention Patentability
& Anr on 31 October‚ 2001 Though in these appeals‚ principal contention involved pertains to the entitlement of the respondents herein to the benefit of the Pass Book Scheme found in paragraph 54 of the Import Export Policy introduced by the appellants herein w.e.f. 1st April‚ 1995 in relation to
Premium Civil procedure Habeas corpus Jury
the Court of Criminal Appeal reversed. APPEAL from an order of the Court of Criminal Appeal refusing leave to Reginald Woolmington‚ the appellant‚ to appeal against his conviction of the wilful murder of Violet Kathleen Woolmington‚ who was his wife. The appellant was convicted on February 14‚ 1935‚ at Bristol Assizes before Swift J. and a jury. The appellant and his wife were married on August 25‚ 1934. He was a farm labourer and bore a good character. His age was twenty-one and a half years‚
Premium Law Mother Criminal law
of Foli v the state(1968) GLR768. In this case‚ the appellants’ made a contention that they didn’t give the deceased‚ Abla Eworho‚ a befitting burial (proper burial) because the deceased violated a custom while she was alive to which she was fully aware; that she must be purified before her death occurred‚ and that in respect to the tradition or custom‚ of which she knew about‚ that her corpse would be burned. Due to this occurrence‚ the appellants were charged before the court for causing harm to
Premium United States Poverty Indigenous Australians
“Conflict Between Law and Morality” * Aakriti Pandey Student of RMLNLU‚ Lucknow Introduction In ancient times there was no distinction between law & morals. The Hindu jurist in ancient India did not make any distinction between law & morals. However‚ later on‚ some distinction came to be made in actual practice. The Mimansa made a distinction between obligatory and recommendatory rules. By the time the commentaries were written‚ the distinction was clearly established in theory also
Free Law Morality Appeal
Andhra Pradesh‚ whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and confirmed the order dated 30.03.2005 passed by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge‚ Mahabubnagar‚ Andhra Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 197 of 2002. Acts/Rules/Orders: Evidence Act‚ 1872 - Section 302 ‚ Section 498A ‚ Indian Penal Code‚ 1860. Brief Facts The victim‚ Smt. Kalyani‚ the deceased in this case‚ was married to the appellant on 26.04.2000. Ever since‚ she was being ill-treated and harassed by
Premium Evidence law Andhra Pradesh
Jackson‚ the Appellate‚ was a mentally deficient deaf. He wasn’t able to read‚ write or communicate. The Appellate was charged with robbery of two different women. Appellant robbed the women for four and five dollars respectively. Appellant was found to be incompetent to stand trial at an incompetency hearing. The Court ordered Appellant to be committed until he was competent to stand trial. Issue: Was the Appellant’s Constitutional rights violated? Did Indiana’s pre-trial commitment violate the Appellant’s
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law Court