Court : US Supreme Court
Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP v. TROICE etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 1279.Argued October 7, 2013Decided February 26, 2014[ 1 ] The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (Litigation Act or Act) forbids the bringing of large securities class actions based upon the statutory or common law of any State in which the plaintiffs allege a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security,15 U.S.C. 78bb(f)(1). The Act defines cov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE23D DAY OF JULY20151ST SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).NO. 19551 OF2012(S) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- K.R.VENUGOPALAN NAIR AGED58YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT INDIRA MANDIRAM KAITHAVANA, SANATHANAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SRI.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRERIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.P.F.C.BHAVANAM C.V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.4. THE CHARIMAN KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION K.P.F.C.BHAVANAM, C.V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Board of Comm'rs of Sheffield - 435 U.S. 110 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Board of Comm'rs of Sheffield, 435 U.S. 110 (1978) United States v. Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, Alabama No. 76-1662 Argued October 11, 1977 Decided March 6, 1978 435 U.S. 110 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Syllabus Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides that, whenever "a State or political subdivision with respect to which" 4 of the Act is in effect shall enact any voting qualification or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force on November 1, 1964, the change has no effect as law unless such State or subdivision obtains, as specified in the statute, a declaratory judgment that the change does not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect. Alternatively, the change may be enforced if it is submitted to the Attorney General and he has interposed no ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(1)ALD(Cri)117; 1999(6)ALT249; 2000CriLJ1297
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a Truck driver. He is in private service. He has been residing in Gudivada town of Krishna District eking out his livelihood by working as a lorry driver for the last two years. He has a family depending on him. In this writ petition he has prayed this Court for declaration that the action of the respondents in maintaining history sheet No. 615 in II Town Police Station, Gudivada against the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional and consequential direction to the respondents to close the history sheet of the petitioner.2. The facts in this case are not in dispute. A crime was registered against the petitioner Under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. for short) in 1972 and also in 1976. In both the cases, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment. On conviction a K.D. Sheet (History sheet) No. 615 in II Town Police Station, Gudivada was opened against him. The history sheet was opened by the third respondent under Poli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(5)ALD618
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by Sri Pydi Shetti, Ex-Sarpanch of the Bangaru Raju Peta Village claiming to be a pro bono public character and as a public interest litigation to espouse the cause of agriculturists of Bangaru Raju Peta Village. The prayer in the writ petition reads:'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the above-named petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaringthe action of the respondents in collecting water tax from the farmers of Bangaru Raju Peta Village as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and to issue a consequential direction to delete the lands surrounding the Seri tank of Bangaru Raju Peta Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District from the 1st respondent gazette notification No. 44, dated 27-6-1990 and to pass such other order or order as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Clinton v. City of New York - 524 U.S. 417 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No. 97-1374. Argued April 27, 1998-Decided June 25,1998 Last Term, this Court determined on expedited review that Members of Congress did not have standing to maintain a constitutional challenge to the Line Item Veto Act (Act), 2 U. S. C. 691 et seq., because they had not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811 . Within two months, the President exercised his authority under the Act by canceling 4722(c) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which waived the Federal Government's statutory right to recoupment of as much as $2.6 billion in taxes that the State of New York had levied against Medicaid providers, and 968 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which permitted the owners of certain food refiners and processors t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(5)ALD85
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, and the Chief Claims Officer, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, who are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 101/87 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem. The 3rd defendants in the suit-The Indian Explosives Limited was impleaded as 2nd represent in the present appeal and the appeal was dismissed for default as against R.2. The Singareni Colleries Company Limited, represented by its Law Officer, Kothagudem is the 1st respondent-plaintiff. 2. The respondent No. 1 herein - the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 78,786-49 ps., together with future interest at 18% per annum, on Rs. 52,176-48 ps., being the value of 161 cases of Ajax-G Explosives.3. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, on the respective pleadings of the parties had settled the issues, examined P.Ws.1, D.Ws.1 to 3, marked Exs.A.1 to A.9 and Exs.B.1 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
Order under section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 The present information has been filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) by M/s Cinergy Independent Film Services Pvt. Ltd. (the informant) against M/s Telangana Telugu Film Distributors Association(the opposite party No.1/ TTFDA), M/s Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (the opposite party No.2/ KFCA), M/s Indian Film Exporters Association (now known as Indian Council of Impex for Films and TV Programmes) (the opposite party No.3/ IMPEX), M/s Andhra Film Chamber of Commerce (the opposite party No.4/ AFCC) and M/s Big Bang Media Pvt. Ltd. (the opposite party No.5) alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Act. 2. Shorn of details, the informant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged inter alia in the business of production and distribution of cinematographic films. The opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are the associations of film producers, dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of six appeals viz. ITA Nos. 142, 143 of 2013, 156, 157, 159 and 160 of 2014 as learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue involved in all the appeals is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No. 142 of 2013. 2. ITA No. 142 of 2013 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 16.10.2012, Annexure A.3 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A, Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 731/CHD/2012 for the assessment year 2009-10. This appeal was admitted on 22.1.2014 by this Court to consider following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in treating chargeability of payments made to doctors who are regular employees of the hospital as per the provisions of Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. The issue On 7 November 2012, a Division Bench referred the following question of law for resolution by the Full Bench: "Whether a temporary police constable appointed under Section 2 of the Police Act 1861 (Police Act), who has not been placed on probation, can be terminated from service in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (Police Regulation) or whether the procedure provided under Para 541 of the Police Regulations dealing with the constables on probation shall be applicable" The issue before the Full Bench, turns upon the interpretation of the provisions of the Police Act and of the Police Regulations. The issue is whether a person, who has been appointed as a police constable on a temporary basis, is entitled to the benefit of Regulation 541 of the Police Regulations. The constables who are before this Court, contend that the services of a person who is appointed on a temporary basis, can...
Tag this Judgment!