Court : US Supreme Court
City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. - 488 U.S. 469 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989) City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. No. 87-998 Argued October 5, 1988 Decided January 23, 1989 488 U.S. 469 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Appellant city adopted a Minority Business Utilization Plan (Plan) requiring prime contractors awarded city construction contracts to subcontract at least 30% of the dollar amount of each contract to one or more "Minority Business Enterprises" (MBE's), which the Plan defined to include a business from anywhere in the country at least 51% of which is owned and controlled by black, Spanish-speaking, Oriental, Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut citizens. Although the Plan declared that it was "remedial" in nature, it was adopted after a public hearing at which no direct evidence was presented that the city had discriminated on the basis of race in letting contracts, or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1990]69CompCas819(Kar); ILR1988KAR3147
P.P. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioners-directors have filed this application tinder the, provisions of rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code, and section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short the Act'), for the following reliefs : 'That this court may be pleased to recall the order dated February 6, 1987, passed by this Hon'ble court in Company Petition No. 47 of 1986 for winding up of the company by name Super Galaxy Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Alternatively, it is prayed that this court may be pleased to permanently stay the winding up order dated February 6, 1987, passed by this court winding up the aforesaid company in Company Petition No. 47 of 1986.' 2. The petitioners are the directors of the company by name Super Galaxy Drugs Pvt. Ltd. (in liquidation). They are also the only two share-holders. This company was ordered to be wound up by this court by its order dated February 6, 1987. It is not in dispute that the official liquidator,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1369; [1988]64CompCas358(SC); JT1988(2)SC167; (1988)IILLJ423aSC; (1988)3SCC105; [1988]3SCR662; 1988(2)LC10(SC)
N.D. Ojha, J.1. These appeals raise an identical question and are as such being decided by a common judgment. Before coming to the question involved in these appeals it would be necessary to give in brief the facts of each of these cases to indicate the circumstances in which the said question arises. Civil Appeal Nos. 4291-4292 of 1984 have been preferred against the judgment dated 18th April, 1984 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983. C.V. Raman, the appellant in these two appeals was an employee in the Bank of India which is a Nationalised Bank. He was dismissed from service in pursuance of disciplinary action for certain charges framed against him. Aggrieved, he preferred an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Tamil Nadu Shops Act). A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Bank of India to the effect that the Tamil Nadu Shops Act was not applicable to the Bank in view ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)IILLJ277Cal
Manash Nath Roy, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated August 1, 1980, passed in Civil Rule No. 8989(W) of 1978, whereby an application dated June 21,1980, as filed by the appellant petitioner, was disposed of on certain terms. In fact, the prayers as made in the said application and more particularly the one relating to prayer (a) was allowed in entirety and the other prayers were not allowed in their entirety. The prayers as made would be indicated hereinafter.2. In or about November, 1940, the petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the services of the Imperial Bank of India which, since 1955 and on the coming into force of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, is known as State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Bank') arid he was confirmed in that post in May, 1941. It has been stated that thereafter, in or about July, 1952, the petitioner was promoted to the post of an Assistant and (Subsequently he was confirmed as Staff Assistant. It was the further c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1987Ker103; (1987)IILLJ183Ker
Sukumaran, J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench relates to the interpretation to be placed on Sections 53 and 61 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. A Division Bench of this Court made some general observations on the scope of the sections in the decision in Abad Fisheries v. Commr. for Workmen's Compensation, 1985 Ker LT 104. The correctness of the observations was doubted by the Division Bench. Those observations would in one view be treated as obiter, in the light of the ultimate factual situation about the payment effected to the claimant, which was noted with satisfaction in the decision itself. It was felt desirable that the legal position is laid down authoritatively by a Full Bench of this Court, as the decision had wide application in relation to large number of claims arising in the industrial sector.3. The C. M. Appeal is against an order of the court below which upheld the defendant-employer's objection about the ous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1416; (1985)87BOMLR563; (1985)3CompLJ45(SC); [1985(51)FLR362]; (1985)IILLJ206SC; 1985(2)SCALE133; (1985)3SCC398; [1985]Supp2SCR131; 1985(2)SLJ145(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. The above Appeals by Special Leave granted by this Court and the above Writ Petitions filed either in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India or in different High Courts under Article 226 and transferred to this Court raise a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Constitution and in particular of what is now, after the amendment of Clause (2) of Article 311 by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, the second proviso to that clause.The Genesis of the Appeals and Writ Petitions2. To understand what questions fall for determination by this Court in these Appeals and Writ Petitions, it is first necessary to sketch briefly how they have come to be heard by this Constitution Bench.3. Article 311 of the Constitution confers certain safeguards upon persons employed in civil capacities under the Union of India or a State. The first safeguard (which is given by Clause (1) of Article 311) is that s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Mitsubishi v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth - 473 U.S. 614 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Mitsubishi v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. 614 (1985) Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. No. 83-1569 Argued March 18, 1985 Decided July 2, 1985 * 473 U.S. 614 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner-cross-respondent (hereafter petitioner), a Japanese corporation that manufactures automobiles, is the product of a joint venture between Chrysler International, S.A. (CISA), a Swiss corporation, and another Japanese corporation, aimed at distributing through Chrysler dealers outside the continental United States automobiles manufactured by petitioner. Respondent-cross-petitioner (hereafter respondent), a Puerto Rico corporation, entered into distribution and sales agreements with CISA. The sales agreement (to which petitioner was also a party) contained a clause providing for arbitration by the Japan Commercial Arbitration ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR3128; (1986)ILLJ237Kant
1. In this petition, the Management of Binny Limited has prayed for quashing the award of the Labour Court, Bangalore, directing reinstatement of the second respondent into service with effect from 30th June, 1977, with continuity of service and full back-wages and other consequential benefits. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The 2nd respondent was a workman in the service of the petitioner. On 21st June, 1977, he was arrested by the Police on a charge under S. 120(b) read with Ss. 489(a) and (b) of the I.P.C. and as a result, he could not attend to his duties on and after 21st June, 1977. Thereafter, he was continuously in judicial custody. The 2nd respondent however, informed the petitioner through his counsel that as he had been in judicial custody, he was unable to attend to his duties. He was released on bail on 14th July, 1977. Immediately thereafter, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner informing him of the fact of his release on bail and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1985Delhi318; 27(1985)DLT134; 1985RLR133
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) Many, years ago there lived a man called Ganga Sahai in village Bhartal near Delhi. He owned much land in the village. In 1913 he purchased land bearing. Khasra No. 1177 from Ranjit and Ram Singh, sons of Gulab Singh. They were the predecessors-in-interest of the present respondents 2 to 5 to this appeal. This land Ganga Sahai purchased without share in shamlet deh. In revenue record he got mutation effected in his name. Ganga Sahai had no son. He, thereforee, gifted the land to his daughter's son, Ram Sarup, the present appellant in 1928. This he did by means of a registered gift deed dated 15-3-1928. Mutation was accordingly effected in favor of Ram Sarup. On this land admeasuring 13 bighas-7 bids was Ganga Sahai had built a dharamshala, a well and a piao. (2) On 29tb May, 1932 before a gathering of the people of the village Ganga Sahai's daughter Mst. Khem Kaur, on behalf of her minor son, the present appellant, made a statement that there was no dharamsh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1984)IILLJ140AP
Chennakesav Reddi, J.1. A controversy of considerable interest and public importance is aroused by this Writ Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. It is (a) whether right to employment is a fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 16 of the Constitution and (b) whether past prejudicial conduct and antecedents of a person relating to his subversive political activity prescribed as a disqualification for employment under Government of India in Office Memoranda dated 27th September, 1967 and 1st August, 1975 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, amounts to an infraction of the provisions of Art. 16 of the Constitution. 2. The controversy in this case grew out of the denial of employment to one Kalluri Vasayya, to a Civil post - a post of Time-Scale Clerk in the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department, Government of India. Vasayya, a Science Graduate, applied for the post of Time-Scale Clerk in the Ind...
Tag this Judgment!