Search for: "State v. Sharma" Results 41 - 60 of 285
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Dec 2022, 4:51 pm by INFORRM
ZXC v Bloomberg [2022] UKSC 5 This was the seminal privacy case of the year, decided by the UK Supreme Court. [read post]
28 Dec 2021, 4:25 pm by INFORRM
Both videos were found to be defamatory of Mr Hijazi In finding for the claimant after the substantive trial, Mr Justice Nicklin stated: “The Defendant’s allegations against the Claimant were very serious and were published widely. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 6:29 am
(1) Roger Shashoua (2) Rodemadan Holdings Ltd (3) Stancroft Trust Ltd v Mukesh Sharma [2009] EWHC 957 (Comm) involved a dispute over a shareholders agreement governed by Indian law, which contained an arbitration clause providing for an arbitration in London, under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (the ICC). [read post]
16 Sep 2021, 11:07 am by INFORRM
This Round up was complied by Suneet Sharma a junior legal professional with a particular interest and experience in media, information and privacy law. [read post]
1 Jan 2020, 1:33 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
Sameer Sharma, a final year student of the National Law University, Jodhpur, points out and critiques the observations in the recent decision of the Supreme Court of India in Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited v. [read post]
8 May 2009, 4:13 am
In a judgment published yesterday (Shashou & Ors v Sharma ([2009] EWHC 957 (Comm)), Cook J. ruled that West Tankers is irrelevant when the injunction enjoins the parties from litigating in India in contravention with an agreement providing for ICC arbitration in London. [read post]
9 May 2020, 9:38 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
-          Sameer Sharma and Rajat Sharma[1] In Satwant Singh Sodhi v. [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 1:00 pm by Zach ZhenHe Tan
As Chinmayi Sharma noted for Lawfare, Jesner “produced an array of fractured opinions. [read post]
19 Jul 2020, 4:41 pm
This is illustrated by the recent decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Pirani v. [read post]