V-Guard Industries Ltd From Wikipedia‚ the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation‚ search V-Guard Industries Ltd | Traded as | NSE: VGUARD | Founded | 1977 | Founder(s) | Kochouseph Chittilappilly | Headquarters | Kochi‚ India | Products | Electrical Appliances | Subsidiaries | Wonderla‚ Veegaland | Website | vguard.in | V-Guard Industries Ltd is a major electrical appliances manufacturer in India‚ and the largest in the state of Kerala with an annual turnover of 7 billion.[1][2] It manufactures
Premium Financial ratio Kerala Financial ratios
Lucas v. Dole 1 Running Head: LUCAS v. DOLE Case Analysis: Lucas v. Dole Lucas v. Dole 2 Case Analysis: Lucas v. Dole Abstract In the Fall of 1987‚ plaintiff Julia Lucas appeals the dismissal of her job discrimination suit. Lucas‚ a white woman‚ argues that she was the victim of reverse discrimination when Rosa Wright‚ a less qualified black woman‚ was promoted to the Quality Assurance and Training Specialist position at her job. The judge dismissed the
Premium Discrimination Racism Prima facie
Thursday‚ 17 April‚ 2014 at 19:33 BST Client ID: Athens Content Type Westlaw UK Title : Thompson v Foy Delivery selection: Current Document Number of documents delivered: 1 Sweet & Maxwell is part of Thomson Reuters. © 2014 Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited Page 1 Mrs Marion Mary Thompson v Mrs Julie Ann Foy The Mortgage Business v Mrs Julie Ann Foy‚ Mrs Marion Thompson Case Nos: 7BM305000‚ 7PC06111 High Court of Justice Chancery Division Birmingham
Premium Doctor
Gideon v. Wainwright – 372 U.S. 335 (1963) Keilah Herring Kaplan University PA 260: Criminal Law Professor Chiacchia March 6‚ 2012 Gideon v. Wainwright – 372 U.S. 335 (1963) Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a felony under Florida State Law. He allegedly broke into a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor‚ thus making it a felony. Mr. Gideon was indigent and asked the court to appoint counsel for him. The court stated that because Gideon was not charged with a capital offense
Premium Contract Law Employment
Court Brief Miranda v. Arizona Citation: Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 1966. Issue: Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants. Relief Sought: Miranda was violated the 5th Amendments right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
------------------------------------------------- CASE ANALYSIS REX V MCDONALD AND MCDONALD St Qd [1904] 151 ------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION In order for criminal liability to be placed‚ an accused must not only commit a specific act but also a breach of a duty concerned1. This concept was brought to the forefront in the case of R v McDonald and McDonald St R Qd [1904] 151. The Supreme Court of QLD2 was called to consider the case of Angus and Flora McDonald‚ appealing
Premium Criminal law Supreme Court of the United States Law
Angela jackson Ap government 9 September 2014 Riley v. California In the case of Riley v California the defendant and petitioner David Leon Riley was arrested August 22‚ 2009‚ after a traffic stop which resulted in the finding of loaded guns in car. The officer stopped riley searched him and took hold of his phone and then searched through messages‚ contacts‚ and photos. The officer charged Riley with an unrelated shooting that had taken place
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Mobile phone
Terry v. Ohio‚ 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Facts of the Case An police officer by the name of Mcfadden observed two men standing at a street corner. He noticed that the two men would take turns on looking inside of the window store. This happenedd about twenty four times and each time they did it the two men would have a conversation. After a while a third guy had joined the duo and then left. After the detective witnessed that action he had suspected that they were casing the store to burglarize the
Premium Terry v. Ohio United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Marbury v. Madison On President John Adam’s last day in office‚ March 4 he appointed forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia as an attempt by the federalists to take control of the judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office. The commissions were signed and sealed by President Adams‚ but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams’s presidency. Jefferson‚ the president succeeding Adams‚ refused to uphold the new judicial
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Marbury v. Madison United States Constitution
Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd (Salomon) has created an impressive case in English Law history. The decision of the House of Lords in Salomon has reaffirmed the separate legal personality of a company. A separate legal personality is also known as the corporate personality. It is one of the consequences of the Company Act 2006 which incorporated a sole trader company to a limited company. When a company has undergone incorporation‚ it simply means that the shareholders of the company are separated
Premium Corporation Limited liability