Court : US Supreme Court
Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno - 515 U.S. 417 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus GUTIERREZ DE MARTINEZ ET AL. v. LAMAGNO ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-167. Argued March 22, 1995-Decided June 14, 1995 Invoking the federal court's jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, petitioners alleged in their complaint that they had suffered physical injuries and property damage as a result of an accident in Colombia caused by the negligence of respondent Lamagno, a federal employee. The United States Attorney, acting pursuant to the statute commonly known as the Westfall Act, 28 U. S. C. 2679(d)(1), certified on behalf of the Attorney General that Lamagno was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the episode. Ordinarily, upon such certification, the employee is dismissed from the action, the United States is substituted as defendant, and the case proceeds under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). But in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2001; JT1995(5)SC1; 1995(4)SCALE1; 1995Supp(4)SCC286; [1995]Supp1SCR542
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. When Lord Jesus Christ was asked by a youngman who was possessed of property what was the road to heaven, the Holy Bible records it in Chapter 19 of the New Testament - the Gospel According to St. Mathew thus,16. And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?17. And he said unto him, Why cellist thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.18. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steel, Thou shalt not bear false witness,19. Honour the father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.20. The young man saith unto him. All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?21. Jesus said unto him, if thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me.22. B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(3)ALT1; I(1996)DMC48
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The judgment and the decree of the learned District Judge, Adilabad (Mr. V.V.S. Krishna Murty) in O.S. No. 35 of 1971 dated 5.11.1982 have been the subject of assailment in this appeal. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The suit was dismissed.2. Defendant No. 3 is the father and Defendant No. 4 is the mother of the plaintiffs. The suit is filed for declaration of title and possession of the suit property which is described in the suit schedule as Survey No. 764 of Mudhole with an extent of Acs. 34-14 guntas of land. The plaintiffs claim their title to the suit property; while they were the minor, their mother Defendant No. 4 alienated the suit property in favour of Defendant No. 1 under the suit sale deed Ex. A.2 equivalent of Ex. B.I dated 16.10.1956 without consideration, without any legal necessity, under the pressure and influence of their father, defendant No. 3, who was very easy going and gay in his style...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2089; JT1995(5)SC205; 1996(7)KarLJ752; 1995(4)SCALE113; (1995)4SCC646; [1995]Supp1SCR745
ORDERN. Venkatachala, J.1. The sustainability of the common judgment of Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court rendered in appeals preferred against the order of dismissal of a Writ Petition by a learned single Judge of the same High Court by which the claim of the followers of Ramakrishna that an educational institution established and administered by their Ramakrishna Mission receives protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India being an educational institution established and administered in exercise of their fundamental right as a minority based on religion and under Article 26(a) of the Constitution of India being an educational institution established and maintained in exercise of their fundamental right as a religious denomination or a Section thereof, is upheld, since arises for our consideration in the present appeals filed against that judgment, all of them could be disposed of by this judgment.2. As the writ petition filed in the High Court, which has led t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)(87)ELT241TriDel
1. M/s. Ranutrol Ltd. of New Delhi have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Customs.The Collector of Customs in his Order-in-Original had held : "I order confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1.962. However, I allow the importer to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). Assessable value of the subject consignment shall be worked as shown in the Annexure to this order. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). Option to redeem the goods should be exercised within a month. Penalty shall be paid forthwith." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants filed a Bill of Entry on 31-10-1990 declaring the goods as component parts of Expansion Valve and component parts of Dial Thermometers. The value of the goods was declared to be Rs. 4,99,209.00 c.i.f. The importers also claimed clearance of the goods under OGL...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1996Delhi172; [1996]85CompCas230(Delhi)
ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J. 1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed chfallenging the order dated 19th December, 1994 of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for short the Appellate Authority) dismissing the two separate appeals of the petitioners by a common judgment; substantially confirming the order dated 6/16 June, 1994 passed by the Board forIndustrial and Financial Reconstruction 'BIFR' for short). Both the authorities, namely, the BIFR and the Appellate Authority, have been constituted under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('SICA' or 'Act', for short) under which proceedings had been held and impugned orders made. The sick industrial company, as defined under clause (o) of Section 3 of the SICA, in the present case is Andhra Cement Limited (ACL). Petition bearing No. 5184/94 has been filed by Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd. and five other petitioners constitutin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1997)88CompCas705
1. This order relates to two petitions under Sections 111(4), (5) and (6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called "the Act"), in respect of Sidhartha Polyester (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter called "the company") by the respective petitioners. The first petition, being C.P. No. 2/111/94, was filed on September 6, 1993, by nine different petitioners who have a common cause seeking a common relief. The second petition, being C. P. No. 9/111/94, was filed subsequently on January 17, 1994, by Mrs. Shukla Mahajan, wife of Shri Yashpal Mahajan. Both the petitions seek identical reliefs. Since the grievances and grounds for the petitions and reliefs in the petitions and as substantially the respondents are all the same, both the petitions, with the consent of the parties, were heard together and are also being disposed of by this common order. In the case of C. P. No. 2 of 1994, more than one person has joined to file a single petition. Subsequently, on December 27, 1993, an application was f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(6)SC339; 1995(5)SCALE142; (1995)5SCC457; [1995]Supp3SCR319; (1995)3UPLBEC1723
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. The petitioner, a practising advocate, has initiated the public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining permanently the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa [BCMG], Bombay Bar Association [BBA] and the Advocates' Association of Western India [AAWI], respondents 2 to 4 respectively, coercing Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee [the 1st respondent], Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, to resign from the office as Judge. He also sought an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation etc. [respondents 8 to 10] into the allegations made against the 1st respondent and if the same are found true, to direct the 5th respondent, Speaker Lok Sabha to initiate action for his removal under Article 124(4) and (5) read with Article 218 of the Constitution of India and Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 [for short, 'the Act']. This Court on March 24, 1995 issued notice to respondents 2 to 4 only and rejected ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1996)130CTR(MP)431
ORDERBY THE COURT :These are applications filed by the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for stating the case and to make reference of the following common questions :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that ginning and pressing charges received from the members is allowable as an exemption though it was with the aid of power ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of the assessee though not admissible within the provisions of s. 80P(2)(v) but is admissible under s. 80P(2)(a)(iii) (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting interest under s. 217 (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting interest under s. 217 (v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in directing the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1995)130CTR(MP)431; [1995]216ITR632(MP)
Shri D. D. Vyas, standing counsel for the Revenue heard.These are applications filed by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for stating the case and to make a reference of the following common questions :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that ginning and pressing charges received from the members is allowable as an exemption though it was with the aid of power ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of the assessee though not admissible within the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(v), but is admissible under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting interest under section 217 ?(v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim and to allow...
Tag this Judgment!