Search for: "C.P.C. v. State"
Results 1 - 20
of 35
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Nov 2015, 3:32 pm
In the case of C.E. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 11:08 pm
State of Gujarat, AIR1975 SC 1234; and Shyam Kishore & Ors. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2009, 12:51 pm
Very important reasons for judgment were released today (AE v. [read post]
23 Oct 2007, 3:26 pm
Microsoft Corp. (1999), 2 C.P.R. (4th) 474, 40 C.P.C. (4th) 394 (Ont. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 12:09 am
It was really shocking to me to see the parties before the Company Law Board pleading pure technicalities without any logic and fair play and we can find judgments stressing on provisions of C.P.C etc. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 11:31 pm
It was really shocking to me to see the parties before the Company Law Board pleading pure technicalities without any logic and fair play and we can find judgments stressing on provisions of C.P.C etc. [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 11:04 am
In today’s case (Shooting Star Amusements Ltd. v. [read post]
16 Jan 2011, 10:11 am
Kiranmoyee Dassi & Anr. v. [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 8:13 am
National Bank of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2001), 21 C.P.C. (5th) 147 (Ont. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 2:05 pm
32, 66 C.P.C. (6th) 100, and A.E. v. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 7:47 am
, 2012 BCSC 1588, 42 C.P.C. (7th) 416. [47] In this proceeding Mr. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 3:58 pm
This is not proper.Proviso (a) to Order XVII Rule 1(2) C.P.C. states that when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds that, for exceptional reasons to be recorded by it the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary. [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 9:47 pm
(1992), 2 C.P.C. (3d) 275 at para. 18 and 19: 18. [read post]
25 May 2022, 4:00 am
Brown, 2022 SCC 18 [2] At common law, automatism is “a state of impaired consciousness, rather than unconsciousness, in which an individual, though capable of action, has no voluntary control over that action” (R. v. [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 7:57 am
Cominco Ltd. (1998), 53 B.C.L.R. (3d) 322, 19 C.P.C. (4th) 22 (B.C. [read post]
17 Jan 2021, 6:15 pm
Corcoran and Pritchard v Van Nes. [read post]
2 May 2021, 5:23 pm
(1993), 21 C.P.C. (3d) 391 (Gen. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 4:00 am
Action4Canada v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507 (CanLII) [71] Put simply, individuals have standing to question whether state actions infringe their Charter protected rights. [read post]
16 May 2019, 12:25 pm
No. 6534, 12 C.P.C. (4th) 391. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 8:13 am
Metropolitan v. [read post]
