Court : US Supreme Court
Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. - 436 U.S. 307 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978) Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. No. 76-1143 Argued January 9, 1978 Decided May 23, 1978 436 U.S. 307 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO Syllabus Appellee brought this action to obtain injunctive relief against a warrantless inspection of its business premises pursuant to 8(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), which empowers agents of the Secretary of Labor to search the work area of any employment facility within OSHA's jurisdiction for safety hazards and violations of OSHA regulations. A three-judge District Court ruled in appellee's favor, concluding, in reliance on Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 , 387 U. S. 528 -529, and See v. Seattle, 387 U. S. 541 , 387 U. S. 543 , that the Fourth Amendment required a warrant for the type of search involved and that the statutory authorization fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2120; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)157; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)762; 1997(1)BLJR263; 1998CriLJ2930; 1998(3)SCALE53; (1998)4SCC626; [1998]2SCR870
S.P. Bharucha, J. 1. On 26th July, 1993, a motion of no-confidence was moved in the Lok Sabha against the minority government of P.V. Narasimha Rao. The support of 14 members was needed to have the no-confidence motion defeated. On 28th July, 1993, the no-confidence motion was lost, 251 members having voted in support and 265 against. Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi and Shailender Mahto, members of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (the JMM), and Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadicharan Das, Abhay Pratap Singh and Haji Gulam Mohammed, members of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the Janata Dal, Ajit Singh group (the J.D., A.S.), voted against the no-confidence motion. Ajit Singh, a member of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the J.D., A.S., abstained from voting thereon.2. It is the respondents, case that the above named members agreed to and did receive bribes, to the giving of which P.V. Narasimha Rao, M.P. and Prime Minist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(7)SC608; 1995(1)KLT172(SC); 1994(5)SCALE1; 1995Supp(2)SCC187; [1994]Supp5SCR526
K. Ramaswamy, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.Ps. No. 10248, 9079, 13769/94 and S.L.P.No....(CC No. 25558/94). 2. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, by its common judgment dated December 10, 1993 in OP. No. 4637/89 and batch since upheld the constitutionality of Sections 57A and 57B inserted by the Abkari (Amendment) Act 21 of 1984 in the Amendment Act into the Abkari Act I of 1077 (for short 'the Act'), the correctness of that judgment is questioned in this appeal. 3. The facts lie in a short compass: 4. The appellants are licencees of arrack or Indian made foreign liquor retail shops or their employees. They have been charged for offences punishable under one or other Sub-sections.(1) to (3) of Section 57A for having mixed or permitted mixing or noxious substance with liquor or for having failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent such mixing or for being in possession of liquor in which such a noxious substance has been mixed with the knowledge that arrack or Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These writ petitions filed in different High Courts and transferred to this Court under Article 139 of the Constitution raise issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary and they have been argued at great length before us. The arguments have occupied as many as thirty five days and they have ranged over a large number of issues comprising every imaginable aspect of the judicial institution, Voluminous written submissions have been filed before us which reflect the enormous industry and vast erudition of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and a large number of authorities, Indian as well as foreign, have been brought to our attention. We must acknowledge with gratitude our indebtedness to the learned Counsel for the great assistance they have rendered to us in the delicate and difficult task of adjudicating upon highly sensitive issues arising in these writ petitions. We find, and this is not unusual in cases of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2012)9SCC1; JT2012(8)SC4; 2012(4)KCCR271(SN); 2012AIRSCW4942; AIR2012SC3565; 2012(7)SCALE553
Aftab Alam, J.1. The appellant, Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’ or as ‘Kasab’), who is a Pakistani national, has earned for himself five death penalties and an equal number of life terms in prison for committing multiple crimes of a horrendous kind in this country. Some of the major charges against him were: conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India; collecting arms with the intention of waging war against the Government of India; waging and abetting the waging of war against the Government of India; commission of terrorist acts; criminal conspiracy to commit murder; criminal conspiracy, common intention and abetment to commit murder; committing murder of a number of persons; attempt to murder with common intention; criminal conspiracy and abetment; abduction for murder; robbery/dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt; and causing explosions punishable under the Explosive S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2219; JT1992(5)SC1; 1992(2)SCALE257; (1992)4SCC506; [1992]Supp1SCR108
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. The person entitled to seek judicial review and the stage at which it is available against the findings of the Inquiry Committee constituted under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in accordance with the law declared in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountably v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1992SC320 -is the question for decision in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the remedy of judicial review is available to the concerned Judge against the finding, if any, by the Inquiry Committee that the learned Judge is 'guilty' of misbehavior only prior to submission of the report of the Committee to the Speaker in accordance with Section 4(2) of the Act or latest till it is laid before the Parliament as required by Section 4(3) of the Act, but not thereafter. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that a copy of the report should be furnished to the concerned Judge before it is submitted to the Speaker, to preser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC477; [1992]Supp2SCR454; 1992DGLS(soft)768:1992Supp(3)SCC217
ORDER1. Judgment of The Chief Justice, M.N. Venkatachallah, A.M. Ahmadi and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ. Delivered by B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.Forty and three years ago was founded this republic with the fourfold objective of securing to its citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. Statesmen of the highest order the like of which this country has not seen since - belonging to the fields of law, politics and public life came together to fashion the instrument of change - the Constitution of India. They did not rest content with evolving the framework of the State; they also pointed out the goal-and the methodology for reaching that goal. In the preamble, they spelt out the goal and in parts III and IV, they elaborated the methodology to be followed for reaching that goal.2. The Constituent Assembly, though elected on the basis of a limited franchise, was yet representative of all sections of society. Above all, it was composed of men of vision, conscious of the his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
PG & E v. State Energy Comm'n - 461 U.S. 190 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court PG & E v. State Energy Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190 (1983) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission No. 81-1945 Argued January 17, 1983 Decided April 20, 1983 461 U.S. 190 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 25524.1(b) of the California Public Resources Code provides that before a nuclear powerplant may be built, the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission must determine on a case-by-case basis that there will be "adequate capacity" for interim storage of the plant's spent fuel at the time the plant requires such storage. Section 25524.2 imposes a moratorium on the certification of new nuclear plants until the State Commission finds that there has been developed, and that the United States through its authorized agency has approved, a demonstrated technology or means for the permanent a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Marsh v. Chambers - 463 U.S. 783 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) Marsh v. Chambers No. 82-23 Argued April 20, 1983 Decided July 5, 1983 463 U.S. 783 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Nebraska Legislature begins each of its sessions with a prayer by a chaplain paid by the State with the legislature's approval. Respondent member of the Nebraska Legislature brought an action in Federal District Court, claiming that the legislature's chaplaincy practice violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and seeking injunctive relief. The District Court held that the Establishment Clause was not breached by the prayer, but was violated by paying the chaplain from public funds, and accordingly enjoined the use of such funds to pay the chaplain. The Court of Appeals held that the whole chaplaincy practice violated the Establishment Clause, and accordingly prohibited the State from engaging i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n - 02-1674 (2003) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES McCONNELL, UNITED STATES SENATOR, et al. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION et al. appeal from the united states district court for the district of columbia No. 021674. Argued September 8, 2003Decided December 10, 2003 The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), which amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), the Communications Act of 1934, and other portions of the United States Code, is the most recent of nearly a century of federal enactments designed to purge national politics of what [is] conceived to be the pernicious influence of big money campaign contributions. United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U. S. 567 , 572. In enacting BCRA, Congress sought to address three important developments in the years since this Courts landmark decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (per curiam): ...
Tag this Judgment!