Search for: "Matter of Singh v Singh"
Results 301 - 320
of 512
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jan 2010, 9:29 am
The school argued that the matrilineal test was based on religious law and the discrimination the school had applied based on the test was religious discrimination, not racial discrimination under s.1 RRA; they also contended that although there was a Jewish ethnic group as defined by the criteria set out in Mandla (Sewa Singh) v Dowell Lee (1983) 2 AC 548 HL, the matrilineal test described a group that overlapped with, but was not identical to, the ethnic group. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 11:30 am
Singh v. [read post]
7 Jun 2020, 4:34 pm
There was a news on the European Commission’s website and Mishcon de Reya Data Matters. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 1:32 am
The matter has been listed for a mention next week. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 7:11 am
Justice Manmohan Singh also held that the expression 'Pranic Healing' cannot be monopolised as trademark by the Institute. [read post]
12 Jun 2013, 7:15 am
Tata Sons Ltd. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2011, 1:10 pm
A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Parvinder Singh v. [read post]
5 Nov 2011, 11:46 am
Teja Singh MANU/SC/0062/1958 . [read post]
13 Dec 2015, 4:00 am
Singh Riar, 2015 ONCA 350 (36449) 2015 SCC 50 The Chief Justice: “We are all of the view that the appeal should be allowed … The conviction is set aside and a new trial is ordered. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
v=Q_Y0gT-ab90 [read post]
16 Oct 2016, 6:46 pm
Only one of them has been reported though, and the Court of Appeal recently weighed in on this action in Singh v. [read post]
18 Mar 2012, 9:34 pm
It is the settled position in law (See Jitendra Kumar Singh v. [read post]
8 Feb 2013, 11:52 am
Inc. v. [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 2:00 am
In the matter of D (a child), heard 3-4 Oct 2018. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 3:39 am
We have, in the past, analysed the case of Dolphin Drilling Co. v. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 7:53 pm
In Baljit Singh v. [read post]
13 Jun 2010, 9:40 pm
But as Dr Chaplin argues, the ambit of “religion” and for that matter “doctrine” is wide and often fuzzy at the edges. [read post]
5 Jan 2019, 8:29 am
* Chanel, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 4:30 am
It appeared to remain the law that where a conclusion was “objectively verifiable” it was not defensible as comment (although reconciling Hamilton v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB) and British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350 is not straight forward on this). [read post]
17 Jun 2023, 12:14 am
The attempt to justify the constitutionality of Section 124-A by relying on the judgement made in Kedar Nath Singh v. [read post]
