Barnes vs. Youngs [1989] 1 Ch 414
●Law of Partnership●
“The expulsion was unlawful as the majority had failed to inform the expelled partners as to the cause of complaint and an opportunity to answer to them”
Bashir vs. State of
●Criminal Law●
“‘Common Intention’ should not be confused with the intention that is an ingredient of many of the offence defined in the Indian Penal Code. The intention, that is an ingredient of many of the offence, is the intention formed by a person himself committing the offence, it is personal matter”
Bedder vs. DPP [1954] 1 WLR 1119
●Criminal Law●
“It would be plainly illogical not to recognize an unusually excitable or pugnacious temperament in the accused as a matter to be taken into account but yet to recognize for that purpose some unusual physical characteristic be it impotence or another”
Beh Tuck Seng vs. R [1947] 13 MLJ 197
●Criminal Law●
“All that is necessary under the section 384 is that a person should be intentionally put in fear of any injury and should be thereby dishonestly induced to deliver any property or valuable security”
Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade vs. State of
●Criminal Law●
“We do not think much can be made out of the stray observation of the High Court ‘that the appellant had far exceeded his rights of private defense’. The circumstances of the case disclose that no right of private defense, either of person or property, had ever accrued to the appellant. The deceased was unarmed. Exception 2 can have no application”
Bhagwan Singh & Co. Sdn Bhd vs. Hock Hin Bros Sdn Bhd [1987] 1 MLJ 324
●Land Law●
“The Torrens System in
●Contract Law●
“If persons who have contractual rights against others induce by their conduct those against whom they have such rights to believe that such rights will either not be enforced, or will be kept in suspense or abeyance for some particular time, those persons will not be allowed by a Court of Equity to enforce the rights until such time has elapsed, without at all events placing the parties in the same position as they were before”
●EQUITY●
“A person cannot accept and reject the same instrument, and this is the foundation of the law of election”
Bishambhar Nath vs. Emperor [1941] AIR Oudh 476 (HC,
●Criminal Law●
“Before a person can be convicted of robbery the prosecution must prove that hurt was caused in order to the committing of the theft or in committing the theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry the property obtained by the theft”
Boda Subrahmanyam & Co vs. State of
●Contract Law●
“Equitable principle as a rule of substantive law capable of creating substantive rights against the representee”
No comments:
Post a Comment