Search for: "State v. Singh"
Results 721 - 740
of 800
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jan 2020, 4:40 pm
This provision is aimed at preventing the stifling of legitimate scientific debate, the inspiration for which was the libel claim in British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 35, in which a scientist/science writer was sued for accusing the claimant of promoting bogus treatments. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 11:06 am
Velusamy v. [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 11:48 pm
In a comment piece by Edzard Ernst, the Guardian drew attention to the British Chiropractic Association’s recent account of its libel action against Simon Singh. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 12:44 am
In Gur Narain Das & Anr. v. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 1:13 am
The Simon Singh case – one of the catalysts for the campaign – is illustrative. [read post]
2 May 2007, 12:32 pm
He must have done more, brought much more pressure on the Government of the day, to get the State Government dismissed, and impose President's rule. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 10:22 am
In Inmacs Ltd. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 11:21 pm
R. v. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 11:59 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
11 Jan 2018, 4:18 pm
Neetu Singh, has been upheld by the Delhi High Court. [read post]
29 Oct 2023, 4:13 am
” Decisions this Week IndiaKrishna Kishore Singh v. [read post]
8 Apr 2023, 5:13 am
” The Submission calls for a reform of the access to information system in Canada Decisions this Week IndiaNeetu Singh v. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 10:20 am
Joshi v. [read post]
15 May 2016, 4:20 pm
On 10 May 2016, HHJ Moloney QC heard applications in the cases of Ghuman v Ghuman and Hussain v Feeney. [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 6:36 am
The second Ordinance seeks to amend the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act passed by Parliament earlier this year to carve out India’s 29th State- Telangana from the erstwhile undivided State of Andhra Pradesh.[2] This Ordinance makes certain amendments to the territories covered by the Khammam district under this State bifurcation law. [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 8:15 pm
Those charged with the heavy responsibility of making government decisions must be free to discuss all aspects of the problems that come before them and to express all manner of views, without fear that what they read, say or act on will later be subject to public scrutiny: see Singh v. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 9:29 am
DAS v. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 2:44 pm
"] From Coffeeshop, LLC v. [read post]
14 Jun 2022, 2:51 pm
From James v. [read post]
25 Aug 2015, 12:14 pm
Yet nowhere is the truth more elusive than in a family law trial and the recent case of Kneller v. [read post]
