KHURSHEED AHMAD KHAN v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
"...what was protected under Article 25 was the religious faith and not a practice which may run counter to public order, health or morality. Polygamy was not integral part of religion and monogamy was a reform within the power of the State under Article 25. This Court upheld the views of the Bombay, Gujarat and Allahabad High Courts to this effect. This Court also upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court upholding such a conduct rule. It was observed that a practice did not acquire sanction of religion simply because it was permitted. Such a practice could be regulated by law without violating Article 25..."...
When Can the Director of a Corporation Be Held Personally Liable for Oppression?
Circumstances in which director can be held personally liable for oppressive conduct
Oppression is a broad and equitable
remedy. It allows Courts to rectify
unfair or prejudicial behaviour on
the part of corporate stakeholders.
While most Canadian case law is
devoted to the issue of what amounts
to oppression, a new decision of
the Supreme Court of Canada,
Wilson v. Alharayeri
, 2017 SCC 39,
clarifies the circumstances in which
a director can be held personally
liable for oppressive conduct.
emphasizes that the test for personal
liability for oppression is fluid and
Canada's top court rules Google must block some results worldwide
Supreme Court rules 7-2 Canadian courts can force Google to remove results worldwide
Canadian courts can force internet search leader Google to remove results worldwide, the country's top court ruled on Wednesday, drawing criticism from civil liberties groups arguing such a move sets a precedent for censorship on the internet.
In its 7-2 decision, Canada's Supreme Court found that a court in the country can grant an injunction preventing conduct anywhere in the world when it is necessary to ensure the injunction's effectiveness.