1. The petitioner challenged an order from the MRTP Commission that found it liable for special damages to be paid to the respondent for supplying defective cans.
2. The Commission found that the defective cans supplied by the petitioner resulted in the respondent's mushroom export supply to customers in the US being rejected.
3. While the Commission order determined liability for the defective cans, it did not adequately discuss the evidence regarding proving and quantifying the special damages claimed by the respondent.
A fictitious legal brief to remit the final judgment of bail forfeiture. Capt. Bryant issued a bond for the release of Rutger Batty who later failed to appear in court. Mr. Batty was in a Texas jail because of a prior illegal gun possession charge. Though Mr. Batty was not incarcerated in a North Carolina jail or a federal prison within the United States, Captain Bryant wants Weft and Wright, P.L.L.C. to try and get the forfeited bail money remitted.
Sample meet and confer declaration for motion for judgment on the pleadings i...LegalDocsPro
This sample meet and confer declaration for a motion for judgment on the pleadings in California is filed pursuant to the new meet and confer requirement found in Code of Civil Procedure section 439(a). This declaration can be used to demonstrate compliance with the new meet and confer requirement before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings in California that just became effective on January 1, 2018. The sample is 5 pages and includes brief instructions, sample wording and a proof of service by mail. The author is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
A fictitious legal brief to remit the final judgment of bail forfeiture. Capt. Bryant issued a bond for the release of Rutger Batty who later failed to appear in court. Mr. Batty was in a Texas jail because of a prior illegal gun possession charge. Though Mr. Batty was not incarcerated in a North Carolina jail or a federal prison within the United States, Captain Bryant wants Weft and Wright, P.L.L.C. to try and get the forfeited bail money remitted.
Sample meet and confer declaration for motion for judgment on the pleadings i...LegalDocsPro
This sample meet and confer declaration for a motion for judgment on the pleadings in California is filed pursuant to the new meet and confer requirement found in Code of Civil Procedure section 439(a). This declaration can be used to demonstrate compliance with the new meet and confer requirement before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings in California that just became effective on January 1, 2018. The sample is 5 pages and includes brief instructions, sample wording and a proof of service by mail. The author is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot.
Anhing v. Viet Phu - Order denying defendant's motion for attorney's feesRobert Scott Lawrence
Order denying defendant Viet Phu's post-trial motion for attorneys fees, noting that under the Lanham Act a prevailing defendant is only entitled to fees in exceptional cases.
This presentation talks about the various aspects of Dishonour of cheque under Negotiable Instrumenmts Act 1881.
The presentation has been prepared as a project work and from basic research and understanding of law.
It must not be taken as any guidance, advise or any advertising on any part.
Lawweb.in when court should not set aside arbitration awardLaw Web
When an Appellate Court deals with the 'Award' assailed in an 'Appeal' it is to bear in mind fully the salient factors:--
"(i) A Court of Law cannot substitute its own decision as if sitting in Appeal over the Award.
(ii) Ambit of interference that the 'Award' is limited.
(iii) A Court of Law is to look into whether there is any negation of the 'Principles of Natural Justice'.
(iv) A Court of Law can interfere only if there is an error on the face of the 'Award'.
(v) A Court of Law can interfere if an 'Arbitrator' had brushed aside/ignored the relevant clause and the terms of the agreement.
(vi) The Award is cemented on a proposition of Law which is erroneous.
(vii) An award could not be set aside just because the reasons are spelt out in brief.
(viii) Interpretation placed by the Arbitrator ought not be disturbed if it is plausible and not because a Court of Law would have come to a different conclusion.
(ix) No interference would be called for when an Arbitrator renders a finding on a particular question of Law when authorised by the concerned parties.
(x) A Court of Law should not disturb the 'Findings' of the Arbitrator when based on facts.
(xi) There must not be a reappreciation of the evidence by a Court of Law, in as much as the same was considered by an Arbitrator."
- See more at: http://www.lawweb.in/#sthash.RIhxrPsK.dpuf
Vargas v. Ford - denying appeal bond to Public Citizen
Case of companies act
1. M/S Hindustan Tin Works Ltd. vs M/S Himalaya International Ltd. on 18 November, 2010
1. The petitioner lays a challenge to the impugned order dated 01.07.2008 of the MRTP Commission („the
Commission‟ for short) in terms whereof the petitioner has been held liable for special damages to be paid to
the respondent.
2. The petitioner was supplying cans to the respondent for its export of Mushrooms. It has been found by the
Commission WP (C) No.7011 of 2008 Page 1 of 4 that the cans supplied during the relevant period were
defective which resulted in the supply made by the respondent to its customers in USA being rejected. The
respondent not only claimed that it was not liable to pay the price of cans to the petitioner, but also that the
amount which would have been payable to it by its customers was naturally not paid and thus resulted in a loss.
3. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner knew the purpose for which the cans were to be utilized and
thus the respondent was entitled to special damages.
4. The impugned order dated 01.07.2008 is in two parts. The first part deals with the liability of the petitioner
for the defective cans supplied to the respondent. The cans supplied by the petitioner to the respondent have
been found to be defective. This portion of the order is detailed and is a reasoned one.
5. We heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner
gives up the plea based on this portion of the order.
6. The second part of the order deals with the consequences thereof and the extent of the liability. This is
seriously disputed by the petitioner as according to the petitioner the respondent has failed to produce the
evidence to either link the defective cans supplied by the petitioner to the respondent with the supplies made by
the respondent to its customers in USA or prove the special damages. This WP (C) No.7011 of 2008 Page 2 of
4 position is naturally repudiated by learned counsel for the respondent. The fact, however, remains that there is
really no discussion of the evidence in this behalf and only para 15 of the impugned order of the Commission
dated 01.07.2008 deals with this aspect. The said para 15 reads as under: " As far as the compensation claim by
the applicant company is concerned, there was no evidence led or any cross-examination done of the applicant
witness by the respondents with regard to the quantum of compensation claimed. In the circumstances, it is felt
that the ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to reimburse the loss of Rs.3,49,75,290/-
with simple interest @8% per annum from the date the concerned consignment was confiscated by the US
authorities till the date of payment subject to deduction of any amount which the applicant company might have
received from the insurer etc. in the meanwhile and it is order accordingly. There will be no order as to costs in
the circumstances."
7. We are thus of the considered view that a conclusion which forms basis for award of special damages cannot
be devoid of discussion of the evidence in this behalf which will indicate the proof of the number of defective
cans, the value of the product supplied in those cans, loss caused as a result thereof and whether the loss so
ascertained has to be reduced by any transit damage amount.
8. It is agreed by learned counsel for the parties that the matter be remanded on the limited aforesaid aspect of
quantification of damages, if any, as a sequitor to the initial findings of the responsibility of the petitioner for the
loss. It WP (C) No.7011 of 2008 Page 3 of 4 is also agreed that no further evidence will be permitted to be filed
by the parties and the decision would have to be based on the evidence on record.
9. Needless to say that learned counsels for the parties will be at liberty to advance all arguments in this behalf.
10. The consequence of aforesaid would be that the quantification of damages as awarded in para 15 aforesaid
of the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh adjudication on that aspect.
11. We are informed that the matters of the Commission stand transferred to the Competition Appellate Tribunal
which is functioning under the Competition Act, 2002 and thus the fresh adjudication would have to take place
before the Competition Appellate Tribunal.
12. The parties are directed to appear before the Competition Appellate Tribunal on 21.12.2010.
13. The writ petition is accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
14. Dasti to learned counsel for the parties. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.