Supreme Court Sample Clauses

Supreme Court now invites bids for the above Procurement Project. Delivery of the Goods is required and must be in accordance with SectionVI. Schedule of Requirements of the Bidding Documents. Bidders should have completed, within five (5) years from the date of submission and receipt of bids, a contract similar to the Project. The description of an eligible bidder is contained in the Bidding Documents, particularly, in Section II (Instructions to Bidders).
Supreme Court through its Local Bank Account, intends to apply the sum of One Million Eight Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱1,820,000.00), being the Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) to payments under the contract for the Procurement of One (1) Unit Passenger / Utility Van for Hauling and Deliveries for the Lower CourtsITB No. 2022-15. Bids received in excess of the ABC shall be automatically rejected at bid opening.
Supreme Court. (1) There shall be a Supreme Court in Nepal.(2) The Supreme Court shall be a court of record. All courts and judicial bodies shall, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, be under the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall have the final authority to interpret this Constitution and laws.(3) The Supreme Court may inspect, supervise and give necessary directives to, it and courts, specialized courts or other judicial bodies under its jurisdiction, in relation to matters relating to judicial administration or management.(4) All must abide by any interpretation of the Constitution or a law made by or any legal principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the course of trying a lawsuit. If anyone makes obstruction in the dispensation of justice by, or disregard any order or judgment handed down by, it or any of its subordinate courts, the Supreme Court may, in accordance with law, initiate proceedings and impose punishment for contempt.
Supreme Court. Finalinstance)IP High Court Suits against Appeal/TrialDecisions made byJapan Patent Office(JPO)(First instance) Japan Patent Office ・ Trials against Examiner's Decision of Refusal・ Trials for Patent Invalidation・ Opposition to Grant of Patent(Appeal/Trial Decision) 3. Case Processing TrendsAverage time intervals from commencement to disposition of Infringement suits : 13 months for first instance and 7 months for second instance• Average time intervals from commencement to disposition of Suits against Appeal/Trial Decisions made by JPO : 8 monthsContent of Judgements and Settlements regarding PatentInfringement Cases (2014-2017)No clause concerningagreement onan injunction or monetary benefit attached: 6% (24 cases) Only a clause concerning agreement on monetary benefit attached: 14% (55 cases) Only a clause concerning agreement on an injunction attached: 3% (10 cases) Settlements Dismissals: 45%(178 cases)Clauses concerning agreement on an injunctionand monetary benefit attached: 11%, (44 cases)Judgments
Supreme Court. The following discussion sets forth the holdings and rationale for those holdings of the three seminal U.S. Supreme Court cases determining the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act over waters of the United States.
Supreme Court. Bfv.II.807/2012/4.
Supreme Court. Chief Assistant Clerk $133,012 Chief Clerk 158,347 Chief Deputy Clerk 81,706 Court Administrator 139,346 Deputy Court Administrator (each) 120,344 Law Librarian 114,010 Senior Law Clerk (each) 70,005 Staff Attorney (each) 107,676 Supervisory Staff Attorney (each) 120,344
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall adjudicate all matters arising out of the elections during the transition, in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the country.
Supreme Court. ■ Although not signed by Global until after the accident, the subcontract with All States was nonethelessexecuted” before the accident. There is no language in the policies requiring both parties to sign the insured contract, and there was no evidence raising a fact issue of the partiesintent to require that all parties to the subcontract sign it as a condition precedent to the subcontract’s validity. The evidence shows just the opposite. Therefore, the “subsequent- to-executionexclusions in both CGL and CAP policies do not bar coverage, and that portion of the court of appealsopinion is affirmed