Court : US Supreme Court
Hamling v. United States - 418 U.S. 87 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974) Hamling v. United States No. 73-507 Argued April 15, 1974 Decided June 24, 1974 418 U.S. 87 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioners were convicted of mailing and conspiring to mail an obscene advertising brochure with sexually explicit photographic material relating to their illustrated version (hereafter Illustrated Report) of an official report on obscenity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 371, and 1461. The indictment under 1461 charged petitioners in the language of the statute, which provides in pertinent part that obscene material and written information as to where it may be obtained is nonmailable, and that "[w]hoever knowingly uses the mails for the mailing . . . of anything declared by this section . . . to be nonmailable . . ." commits a crime. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the counts charging...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Payton v. New York - 445 U.S. 573 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) Payton v. New York No. 78-5420 Argued March 26, 1979 Reargued October 9, 1979 Decided April 15, 1980 * 445 U.S. 573 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK Syllabus These appeals challenge the constitutionality of New York statutes authorizing police officers to enter a private residence without a warrant and with force, if necessary, to make a routine felony arrest. In each of the appeals, police officers, acting with probable cause but without warrants, had gone to the appellant's residence to arrest the appellant on a felony charge and had entered the premises without the consent of any occupant. In each case, the New York trial judge held that the warrantless entry was authorized by New York statutes and refused to suppress evidence that was seized upon the entry. Treating both cases as involving routine arrests in which there was ample time to obtain a warrant, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer - 343 U.S. 579 (1952) U.S. Supreme Court Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer Argued May 12-13, 1952 Decided June 2, 1952 * 343 U.S. 579 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus To avert a nationwide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense, the President issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the steel mills. The Order was not based upon any specific statutory authority, but was based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Secretary issued an order seizing the steel mills and directing their presidents to operate them as operating managers for the United States in accordance with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Louisiana - 363 U.S. 1 (1960) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1 (1960) United States v. Louisiana No. 10, Original Argued October 12-15, 1959 Decided May 31, 1960 363 U.S. 1 ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Syllabus Invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court under Art. III, 2 of the Constitution, the United States brought suit against the States of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, seeking a declaration that it is entitled to exclusive possession of, and full dominion and power over, the lands, minerals, and other natural resources underlying the waters of the Gulf of Mexico more than three geographical miles seaward from the coast of each State and extending to the edge of the Continental Shelf. It also asked that the States be enjoined from interfering with the rights of the United States in that area, and that they be required to account for all sums of money derived by them therefrom since June 5, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Govt. of NCT of Delh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Shyam Sharma, Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services - 433 U.S. 425 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977) Nixon v. Administrator of General Services No. 75-1605 Argued April 20, 1977 Decided June 28, 1977 433 U.S. 425 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus After appellant had resigned as President of the United States, he executed a depository agreement with the Administrator of General Services that provided for the storage near appellant's California home of Presidential materials (an estimated 42 million pages of documents and 880 tape recordings) accumulated during appellant's terms of office. Under this agreement, neither appellant nor the General Services Administration (GSA) could gain access to the materials without the other's consent. Appellant was not to withdraw any original writing for three years, although he could make and withdraw copies. After the initial three-year period...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDCTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6203-6204__OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 1259-1260 of 2016) Nabam Rebia, and Bamang Felix Appellants versus Deputy Speaker and others Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The 5th session of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as, the Assembly/House) was concluded on 21.10.2015. On 3.11.2015, the Governor issued an order summoning the 6th session of the Assembly, to meet on 14.1.2016 in the Legislative Assembly Chamber at Naharlagun. The instant order was passed by the Governor, on the aid and advice of the Chief Minister, and in consultation with the Speaker of the House. The 6th session of the House was preponed by the Governor from 14.1.2016 to 16.12.2015, by an order dated 9.12.2015 indicating inter alia the manner in which the proceedings of the House should be conducted. In its support, the Governor issued a message on 9.12.2015....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.104 OF2015ANOOP BARANWAL PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No.1043 OF2017WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO.569 OF2021AND WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO.998 OF2022JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.INDEX A. THE CASES: THE FOUR WRIT PETITIONS ......................................................................................... 3 B. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS; SHRI GOPAL SANKARANARAYANAN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL IN WRIT PETITION (C) No.1043 OF2017............................................................................... 7 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF SHRI PRASHANT BHUSHAN, LEARNED COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.104 OF2015 .................................................................... 11 D. SUBMISSIONS BY SHRI JAYA THAKUR, PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.998 OF202216 E. SUBMISSIONS OF SHRI KALEESWARAM RAJ, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2007)105ITD169(Chd.)
1. The appeal of the revenue for assessment year 1996-97 is directed against the order dated 22-3-2000 of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Chandigarh. The only dispute is relating to the nature of Rs. 55 lakhs received by the assessee on the basis of the agreement(s) executed between the parties, and its taxability.2.The relevant facts in this case are that the respondent family hailed from that part of India which is now in Pakistan and was carrying on the business of manufacture of ice-cream for the past many generations.It was a large family and at the time of partition various branches of the family migrated to India and settled in different parts of India like Shimla, Chandigarh, Delhi, Lucknow, Calcutta, Bombay etc. where every one was carrying on his own business of manufacturing ice-cream and running of restaurants. The Chandigarh branch of the family started manufacturing ice-cream under the brand name "Kwality" and the icecream was being sold in the following territorie...
Tag this Judgment!