Court Appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.327 of 1994 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge‚ City Civil Courts‚ Secunderabad‚ are the appellants herein. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.2‚00‚000/-. 2. According to the case of the plaintiff‚ the first defendant was offered as Programmer Trainee vide letter dated 26-03-1993 on a consolidated stipend of Rs.2‚250/- per month and the first defendant signed the letter of appointment on 05-04-1993 agreeing the terms and he underwent training
Premium Contract Breach of contract Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------- Foss v Harbottle Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189 is a leading English precedent in corporate law. In any action in which a wrong is alleged to have been done to a company‚ the proper claimant is the company itself. This is known as "the rule in Foss v Harbottle"‚ and the several important exceptions that have been developed are often described as "exceptions to the rule in Foss v Harbottle". Amongst these is the ’derivative action’‚ which allows
Premium Pleading Plaintiff Corporation
The First Defendant‚ Second Defendant and Third Defendant‚ collectively as the ‘Defendants’‚ refer to the 29th of March 2017 statement of claim and say: Summary 1. The Plaintiffs describe paragraphs 1 to 7 of their 29th of March 2017 statement of claim as being a summary of their case. 2. In the paragraphs that follow 1 to 7 they then set their substantive allegations. 3. As the Defendants respond below to each and all of those allegations‚ there appears to be no requirement for them to plead
Premium Pleading Complaint Plaintiff
V Pringle [1986] 2 All ER 440 The plaintiff and the defendant were two schoolboys involved in an incident in a school corridor as the result of which the plaintiff fell and suffered injuries. The plaintiff issued a writ claiming damages and alleging that the defendant had committed a trespass to the person of the plaintiff. In his defence the defendant admitted that he had indulged in horseplay with the plaintiff and on the basis of that admission the plaintiff applied for summary judgment under
Premium Appeal Tort Judgment
305-456-7890 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT INANDFOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY‚ FLORIDA WILMA MAPLES‚ Plaintiff‚ CIVIL DIVISION vs. CASE: 13-2014-159753 DEPT. NO: XVII DOCKET NO: WE CARE FOR YOU HOSPITAL AND REHABILITATION CENTER‚ 1-5 DOES‚ 1-5 ROES‚ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT‚ NOTICE‚ AND BRIEF Defendants. ___________________________/ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT COME NOW‚ PLAINTIFF‚ by and through her attorney
Premium Duty of care Plaintiff Civil procedure
ONLY) 9643 : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RODELL RAHMAAN‚ : Adv. Pro. No. 05-02049 Plaintiff‚ : vs. : ROY J. LISATH‚ aka ROY JESSE LISATH‚: Defendant. : PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Now comes the Plaintiff‚ Rodell Rahmaan (hereinafter “Rahmaan”)‚ by and through his undersigned attorney‚ and respectfully MOVES this Honorable Court for the entry of JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT against
Premium Civil procedure Judgment Plaintiff
Breach of Contract This paper aims to discuss and examine the case law‚ Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd. and analyse the reasons why Brightman J in this case believe that there will be unjust if the nominal sum is awarded to the plaintiffs. The measure of damages (restitution interest/remedy(remedy Campbell‚restitution for breach of contract) and damages in lieu of injunction will also be explained. Furthermore‚ the relevant case laws will be included. Before considering the decision
Premium Plaintiff Contract Defendant
The plaintiffs’ proposal for allocating the award did not account for elimination of uninjured individuals. Tyson argued that the plaintiffs should be required to identify all uninjured members in the case so that only those injured are awarded. The Supreme Court further held that “the question whether uninjured class members
Premium Class action Plaintiff Supreme Court of the United States
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JUSTIN WILLIAM KING‚ ) ) Plaintiff. ) ) ) v. ) ) ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES‚ INC. ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) COMPLAINT Comes now the plaintiff‚ Justin King‚ by and through his attorney‚ states as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff‚ for all times mentioned herein‚ was and is a resident of Cook County‚ State of Illinois. 2. Defendant is
Premium Jurisdiction Jury Illinois
District 489 Appeal: Gerald K. Adams v Uno Restaurants‚ Inc Rhode Island Supreme Court No. 2000-266 (KC 97 -1005) Facts: On May 20‚ 1996‚ the plaintiff‚ who had been employed by the defendant for several years‚ arrived for his nighttime line cooking shift at the defendant’s Warwick restaurant. Shortly‚ after his shift began‚ the plaintiff noticed that the kitchen floor was saturated with a foul-smelling liquid coming from drains and backing up water onto the floor. He complained of illness
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Civil procedure Jury