Court : US Supreme Court
Morse v. Republican Party of Va. - 517 U.S. 186 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1995 Syllabus MORSE ET AL. v. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA No. 94-203. Argued October 2, 1995-Decided March 27,1996 Appellee Republican Party of Virginia (Party) invited all registered Virginia voters willing to declare their support for the Party's nominees at the 1994 general election to become delegates to a convention to nominate the Party's candidate for United States Senator upon payment of a registration fee. Appellants Bartholomew and Enderson desired, and were qualified, to become delegates, but were rejected because they refused to pay the fee; appellant Morse paid the fee with funds advanced by supporters of the eventual nominee. Alleging, inter alia, that the imposition of the fee violated 5 and 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, appellants filed a complaint seeking an injunction preventing the Party from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida - 517 U.S. 44 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1995 Syllabus SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA v. FLORIDA ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 94-12. Argued October 11, 1995-Decided March 27,1996 The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, passed by Congress pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause, allows an Indian tribe to conduct certain gaming activities only in conformance with a valid compact between the tribe and the State in which the gaming activities are located. 25 U. S. C. 2710(d)(I)(C). Under the Act, States have a duty to negotiate in good faith with a tribe toward the formation of a compact, 2710(d)(3)(A), and a tribe may sue a State in federal court in order to compel performance of that duty, 2710(d)(7). In this 2710(d)(7) suit, respondents, Florida and its Governor, moved to dismiss petitioner Seminole Tribe's complaint on the ground that the suit violated Florida's sovereign immunity from suit in federal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR3202; [1996]219ITR100(KAR); [1996]219ITR100(Karn); 1996(41)KarLJ280
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing the revisional order dt. 11th July, 1994 (Annexures F & L) passed by the respondent CIT under s. 264 of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) upholding the orders of the respondent ITO (Annexures D & J) whereby the applications of the petitioners for waiver of interest levied under ss. 139(8) and 215 of the Act had been rejected. 2. The first petitioner is the partner in two firms namely M/s M. V. Bhojiah B. A. and M/s Bhojayya Sons. Though these firms had filed returns for the asst. yr. 1988-89 on 27th March, 1989 and 22nd Nov., 1988 respectively, but the petitioner filed his return much belatedly, i.e., on 1st May, 1991. He also appears to have failed to pay the advance tax in accordance with the provisions under the Act. Accordingly interest was levied against him under ss. 139(8) and 215 of the Act rejecting his prayer for waiver of the same by the order dt. 9th March, 1993 (Annexure D), but by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1996)59ITD523(Ahd.)
1. The only effective ground raised in this appeal by the Revenue reads as under: The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 11,20,567 for 1985-86 being the amount of excise duty collected but not paid to the Central Excise Department.2. The assessee a partnership firm derives income from dyeing of art silk cloth on job basis as well as on its own account. The Excise Authorities, on the basis of certain notifications and the relevant provisions of Excise Laws interpreted the relevant provisions in such a way that according to them excise duty was leviable not only on the job work carried on by the assessee on the cloth entrusted by various customers but also on the value of the said cloth belonging to the various customers regardless of the fact that the assessee was not the owner of the said cloth. The assessee as well as various other processors filed Writ Petitions in the Gujarat High Court and the Hon'ble High Court decided the point in fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR3313; 1996(5)KarLJ59
Pendse, C.J. 1. An area of 2 acres of agricultural land out of Survey No. 53/4 in the Village, Kamasagara in Channagiri Taluk of Shimoga District, was granted by the Competent Authority in favour of the late husband of respondent-3. The Saguvali Chit, which is in the nature of Grant Certificate, was issued in favour of the grantee on April 17, 1940, in accordance with the Mysore Land Grant Rules. The grant was subject to certain conditions and the principal condition was that the grantee shall not alienate the land at any time. The Government had a right to resume the land in case the grantee committed any breach of the conditions. In spite of the condition of non-alienability, the grantee sold the land to the appellant's father by registered Sale Deed dated May 31, 1957. It is not in dispute that the appellant's father and after his demise, the appellant, continued to remain in possession from the date of sale.2. The Government of Karnataka enacted the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997ACJ1258
S.C. Pandey, J.1. This appeal is directed against award dated 30.9.1988 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshangabad, in Claim Case No. 2 of 1982. The Claims Tribunal has given an award of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation, against the appellant respondent Nos. 6 and 8. The respondent No. 8, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., has filed the Appeal No. 489 of 1989 against the same award. The order in this appeal shall govern the disposal of that appeal too.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Keshav Prasad Shukla died in an accident leaving behind his wife and four minor daughters. They filed a claim under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (henceforth 'the Act'). It was claimed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that the deceased Keshav Prasad was killed in an accident with truck No. CPB 6317 on 1.8.1987. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 61(1996)DLT206; 1996(36)DRJ34
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) A large number of writ petitions have been referred for being decided by this Full Bench as all of them involve some important common questions of law besides some writ petitions having, in addition, certain additional points for decision. We shall, at first, deal with the disputed questions of law and facts which arc common to all the petitions and thereafter shall deal with individual cases with regard to their additional points.(2) The challenge in all these writ petitions is to the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the land belonging to the petitioners in pursuance to the various notifications issued from time to time for the common public object of planned development of Delhi. The Master Plan of Delhi, which came into force in 1962, in its Introduction, gives the broad background in which it became necessary to have the growth of the city planned in a more scientific and modern way. As indicated in the Master Plan, in order to check the haphazard and unplann...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)41; AIR1996SC1048; JT1995(9)SC182; 1996LabIC931; 1995(6)SCALE774; (1996)1SCC454; [1995]Supp6SCR334; 1996(1)LC143(SC)
ORDERB.L. Hansaria, J.1. The petitioners are members of the teaching specialist sub-cadre of the Central Health Service under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. They are engaged in teaching and doing clinical work in Lady Harding Medical College and associate hospitals at New Delhi. Their grievances are that the Tikoo Committee Report which recommended that the teaching specialists should be placed in the grade of Rs. 4,500-5,700 after four years of the granting of the scale of Rs. 3,700-5,000, and distinction between the functional grade and non-functional grade may be done away with and promotion be made to the grade of Rs. 4,500-5,700 on a time bound basis on completion of 8 years as specialists have not been implemented from the date of the submission of the report (31.10.1990.), but from 1.12.1991, which date according to the petitioners is arbitrary and would have adverse effect on seniority of some. The stand of the Ministry, however, is that as the Office Memorandum cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)131CTR(Guj)127; [1996]222ITR831(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' by its order dt. 6th April, 1993, has referred the following questions of law to this Court for its decision which are said to have arisen out of the ITA No. 5230/Ahd/1991 relating to the asst. yr. 1988-89 : The questions which have been referred at the instance of the assessee in RA No. 709/Ahd/92 are : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,48,24,876 became taxable in the hands of the firm which according to the assessee stood dissolved through dissolution deed dt. 16th Aug., 1984 (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the case would be governed by the Supreme Court decision in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1984) 154 ITR 148 and not by the Supreme Court decision in CWT vs . Arvind Narottam : [1988]173ITR479(SC) and by the Madras High Court decision in the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1996All342
ORDER1. Leave is granted on the prayer of Shri B. D. Mandhyan. Learned counsel for the petitioner to correct the cause, title so as to convert the petition into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Facts as emerging from this case are that the respondent No. 3 as plaintiff instituted a suit being suit No. 310 of 1990 in the Court of learned Munsif (City) Saharanpur, on 29th September, 1990 against the Respondent No. 4 and 5 and the petitioner herein as defendant No. 1,2 & 3 respectively for injunction restraining the defendant No. I & 2 (respondent No. 4 & 5) from transfering their share in the suit property and delivering possession to the defendant No. 3 (petitioner herein) without effecting any partition in respect of the family dwelling house being suit property therein. Admittedly plaintiff and the defendant No. I & 2 are co-sharers in respect of the family dwelling house being the suit property and the defendant No. 3 is a stranger.3. In connection with the said ...
Tag this Judgment!