Court : US Supreme Court
Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. - 246 U.S. 297 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918) Oetjen v. Central Leather Company No. 268, 269 Argued January 3, 4, 1918 Decided March 11, 1918 246 U.S. 297 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HUDSON COUNTY STATE OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus The court notices judicially that the government of the United States recognized the government of Carranza as the de facto government of the Republic of Mexico on October 19, 1915, and as the de jure government on August 31, 1917. Semble, that the Hague Conventions, in view of their terms and international character, do not apply to a civil war, and that the regulations Page 246 U. S. 298 annexed to the Convention of 1907 do not forbid such a military seizure and sale of private property as is involved in this case. The conduct of our foreign relations is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative -- the political -- departments of the government...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1943Bom463; (1943)45BOMLR940
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by Mr. Justice Chagla in chambers dismissing an application to set aside an order made by the Prothonotary and Senior Master transmitting a certified copy of an award dated July 30, 1938, to the District Court of Ajmer for execution.2. The facts giving rise to the application are these. On July 30, 1938, the award in question was made, and on August 6 notice was given to the parties of the filing of the award under Section 11 of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899. On December 5, 1940, the award was filed in this Court. On May 14, 1942, an application was made to the Prothonotary & Senior Master to transfer the award for execution to the District Court of Ajmer, and such an order was made on June 25. On April 7, 1943, a summons was taken out for setting aside that order of the Prothonotary, and it is against the dismissal of that summons that this appeal is brought.3. The arbitration took place under the old Arbitration ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1951]20ITR67(Cal)
DAS GUPTA, J. - This is an application on behalf of Hind Estates, Ltd., inter alia for a writ of mandamus or writ of like nature directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and each of them to forbear from giving effect to the notices issued by them to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 on diverse dates including 16th May, 1950, or from taking any further steps in pursuance of the said notices or taking or continuing any proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949.The case of the petitioner before me is as follows : The petitioner, Hind Estates, Ltd., is a private limited company incorporated in India under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The registered office of the company is situate at No. 220/1, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta. The respondents Nos. 4 and 5 by a registered lease dated the 13th December, 1948, granted in favour of the petitioner a lease for 99 years commencing from 1st January, 1949, of a number of properties situate in Calcutta at a rent o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1953P& H134
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed in execution by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, dismissing the execution petition of Ratan Lal on the ground that Rs. 5,000/- worth of 12 years Post-Office National Savings Certificates deposited by the judgment-debtor with the Central Public Works Department as security were evacuee property.2. The Custodian Evacuee Property, Delhi, applied to the executing court on 8-10-1949, in which he stated that Nur Mohammad had become an evacuee and the property lying in Court was, therefore, evacuee property. In order to determine whether it is evacuee property or not it is necessary to briefly state the facts of the case. These certificates were deposited with the Central Public Works Department as security. On 12-6-1946, Ratan Lal decree-holder got these 12 year Post Office National Savings Certificates attached at a time when no evacuee legislation existed. On 18-5-1949, the Court was informed that these certificates had been deposit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1951]2SCR747
Kania, C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the President of India under article 143 of the Constitution asking the Court's opinion on the three questions submitted for its consideration and report. The three questions are as follows :- '(1) Was section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, or any of the provisions thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent ultra vires the Legislature which passed the said Act ?' 2. Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, mentioned in the question, runs as follows :- 'The Provincial Government may, by notification in the official gazette, extend with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit to the Province of Delhi or any part thereof, any enactment which is in force in any part of British India at the date of such notification.' '(2) Was the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, or any of the provisions thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent ultra vires the Legislature which passed the said Act ?' 3. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1954All121
Desai, J.1. This is an application in revision against conviction under Section 18 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act (Act No, 23 of 1931). There is no dispute about the facts; the conviction is challenged on the ground that the Act was unconstitutional and became void on the passing of the Constitution. On a search of the applicant's house on 11-6-1950 in execution of a search warrant issued by the District Magistrate of Azamgarh cyclostyled leaflets were recovered. Some leaflets contained the constitution of the United Provinces Khet Majdoor Union, some were entitled 'Conspiracy of Great Britain and America to start third world War' and the others contained communist propaganda. The name of the printer was not printed on any of them.2. Section 15 of the Act lays down that a District Magistrate mayby order in writing and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose, authorise any person by name to publish a news sheet, or to publish hews sheets from time to time.A ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1954]26ITR375(P& H)
ORDERCHOPRA, J. - The facts giving rise to this reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, are these : the assessee company, M/s. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd., Dadri, before it was started entered into an agreement with the Ruler of the erstwhile Jind State, on 1st April, 1938. The document was duly executed and signed by one of its promoters on behalf of the company and by the then Chief Minister on behalf of the State Government. By clause (1) of the agreement, the State granted and conferred upon the company termed as licensee the sole and exclusive monopoly right of manufacturing cement in the Jind State, both for consumption in the State and for exporting outside, on the terms and conditions for a period of twenty-five years commencing from the date of agreement and gave an option to the licensee to renew it for successive periods of twenty-five years each up to an aggregate of 100 years counted from 21st July, 1936. Besides other benefits that the State or its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC77; [1955]2SCR1117
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Custodian-General of Evacuee Property dated the 20th May, 1953, revising an order of the Additional Custodian of East Punjab, Delhi, dated the 20th March, 1952. The two questions raised before us on the facts and circumstances, to be stated, are (1) whether the Custodian-General had the revisional power which he purported to exercise, and (2) was the order of the Custodian-General on its merits such as to call for interference by this Court. 2. The appellant before us, one Mrs. Indira Sohanlal, is a displaced person from Lahore. She was the owner of a house at Lahore known as 5, Danepur Road. Malik Sir Firoz Khan Noon of West Pakistan owned 766 bighas of agricultural land in a village called Punjab Khore within the State of Delhi. An oral exchange is said to have taken place between these two, of the said properties, on the 10th October, 1947. In pursuance of that exchange Malik Sir Firoz Khan Noon is said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC559; (1956)58BOMLR995; 1956CriLJ1104; [1956]1SCR506
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 272 of 1955. Petition under. Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Purshottam Trikamdas, V. R. Upadhya, J. B. Dadachanji and S. N. Andley, for the petitioner. M.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents. 1956. May 8. The Judgment of S. R. Das C.J. and Venkatarama Ayyar, B. P. Sinha and Jafer Imam JJ. was delivered by Sinha J. Jagannadhadas J. delivered a separate judgment. SINHA J.-This petition under article 32 of the Constitution challenges the vires of certain provisions of the Bombay Police Act, XXII of 1951, which hereinafter will be referred to as "The Act" with particular reference to section 57 under which the externment order dated the 8th November 1954 was passed against the petitioner by the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch (1), C.I.D., Greater Bombay. The second respondent is the State of Bombay. The petitioner, who cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1957Mad333
1. The constitutional validity of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, XXV of 1955 is challenged in this petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Sub-Collector, Dindigul, dated 17-4-1956 who acting under Section 4 of the Act directed the restoration of the 2nd respondent, Rakkappan Servat, to the possession of certain lands belonging to the petitioner,2. The land which forms the subject-matter of the dispute in the present proceedings is of an extent of about 3 acres situated in the village of Mannadimangalarn in Nilakottai taluk. The 2nd respondent claimed that he along with one Ayyaswami Pillai was jointly cultivating these lands under a lease deed executed on their behalf in favour of one Sadastvam pillai. Their case was that the joint family of the petitioner and his elder brother was the owner, of the land and that in or about May, 1953, the petitioner's elder brother Rajagopala Aiyar now deceased leased the lands to Sadasivam Pillai for a ...
Tag this Judgment!