Judgment · High Court · 2011
Judgment
. y D C D C ’ 5 D C C D D C D J C - r D P C I . R R D R D o 0 — a i c - 0 ) 2 D C D R a P - 2 i - I R D C — D R I R D C — D C D R C D D R D C a H I R D C D C D R D R 2 — C D I R D C 2 a C D • D C C D 1 p D C D R I R < P C D 2 i L > ) C a D R p D R D C D R — P I R . H J - D C I R D R C D C r z D R C D a P D R D C L P I R D R 0 H I R 2 P a D R 0 D P C : 2 D C D R + a D R D C D R p r t r I R D C o D C D R 0 I D R D R R C D t r D C J a D C I R I R D C C D I R D C a D R D R I R D R D C D C C D I R P 0 — I R D C D R D R 0 D C C D a a L D R i I R D C D R — ? L D R D R D R — D R P D C D R D R R I ) p P D C D R D R — D R — a i D < ± I R > t I R Z D R D R D R a D C D C C2 D R D C t r I R D C D R D R - D R D C t r D C D R ; D R D R a — D C D C — - p a p a D R D R y - C C D D C C I ( . a D C a D C D C I R D P C D R D C D C a D R r i i P D R 2 0 2 a D R D C • D C P - D R t r I R D R c D C I R • D R i L r D R C D i — D R , 2 1 $ D C D R C D < < D C p — C D D R D i D I D R R D C D R D C a C D R \ P P D R . P D R I R r p D C H I R D C , — r I R i D C C D L 4 I Q p’. fl.L1fl I (fl he I’ i. iii Ifjij1r i rh’ I lept ‘sit TI pr M t etU net ‘h s ttlcmcn t F b s inure st of the Thirties n ‘I therefore we toted ‘cc C rdi igi thc. Judgmei t ir ci At ird daft d 1 03 lOOt passcd in M( “ 111 2OO. 1th ‘ii the PH (nil Judge (SRDN) & (JM ddl MC1 Dhanad stands modificd in tcrms of thc oint M rtrc crIdreed fl lint shill be teic s f c apx.lart r diatel d o c d
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.