Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Wood - 299 U.S. 123 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (1936) United States v. Wood No. 34 Argued October 20, 1936 Decided December 7, 1936 299 U.S. 123 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. Bias of a prospective juror may be actual or implied -- i.e., bias in fact or bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law. P. 299 U. S. 133 . 2. The Act of August 22, 1935, concerning qualifications of jurors in the District of Columbia, leaves all prospective jurors subject to examination and rejection for actual bias. Id. 3. In dealing with an employee of the Government, summoned to jury service in a criminal case, the court should be solicitous to discover whether, in view of the nature or circumstances of his employment, or of the relation of his particular governmental activity to the matters involved in the prosecution, he has actual bias. P 299 U. S. 134 . Page 299 U. S. 12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Vandalia R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n - 242 U.S. 255 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Vandalia R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 242 U.S. 255 (1916) Vandalia Railroad Company v. Public Service Commission of Indiana No. 81 Submitted November 6, 1916 Decided December 11, 1916 242 U.S. 255 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA Syllabus Prior to the Act of March 4, 1915, c. 169, 38 Stat. 1192, and after the Act of February 17, 1911, c. 103, 36 Stat. 913, the state police power extended to the regulation of the character of headlights used on Page 242 U. S. 256 locomotives employed in interstate commerce. Atlantic Coast Line v. Georgia, 234 U. S. 280 . A judgment which correctly refused injunctive relief against such state regulation may not be attacked on writ of error as a judgment infringing federal rights (Judicial Code, 237) upon the ground that the same field of regulation has since been occupied by tho federal government under an act of Congress enacted af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC440; (1976)3SCC710; [1977]1SCR118; 1976(8)LC740(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. The short question which arises for determination in this appeal on certificate by Damodar Valley Corporation against the judgment of Patna High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant is whether the appellant is liable to pay electricity duty under Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 as amended by Bihar Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, 1963. The High Court answered the question in the affirmative against the appellant.2. The appellant is a corporation established under the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 for the development of the Damodar Valley in the States of Bihar and West Bengal. One of the functions of the appellant is the promotion and operation of schemes for the generation, transmission and distribution of hydroelectric and thermal electrical energy. Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 (Bihar Act 36 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) was published in the Bihar gazette on October 1, 1948. It was an Act for the levy of du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition Nos.12882, 12890, 13019, 13037, 13038, 13227, 13293, 13296, 13345, 13381, 13390, 13547 of 2011 and W.P.(M.D.) No.6143/2011 whereby the High Court has struck down Section 3 of The Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education (Amendment) Act, 2011 (hereinafter called the Amendment Act 2011) and issued directions to the State Authorities to implement the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education Act, 2010 (hereinafter called the Act 2010), i.e. to implement the common syllabus, distribute the textbooks printed under the uniform system of education and commence the classes on or before 22.7.2011. The Contempt Petitions have been filed for non-implementing the directions given by this Court vide order dated 14.6.2011. 2. FACTS: A. In the State of Tamil Nadu, there had been different Boards imparting basic education to st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants, who have appeared in the Entrance Examination for Post-Graduate (Medical) Selection 2012, Odisha are challenging the validity of Clause 11.2 of the Prospectus for selection of candidates for Post- Graduate (Medical) Courses in the Government Medical Colleges of Odisha for the Academic Year, 2012, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. –3. The appellants appeared in the entrance examination as ‘direct candidates’ (Open Category) and have qualified purely on merit for admission to Post Graduate (Medical) Courses 2012 in the Government Medical Colleges in Odisha. The Prospectus issued for Post-Graduate (Medical) Selection, 2012, Odisha deals with the availability of the seats both in the category of direct as well as in-service. Clause 4 of the Prospectus gives the category-wise details of the seats for P.G. (Medical) Courses in three Government Medical Colleges in Odisha for the Academic Year 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)641; JT1996(4)SC263; 1996(3)SCALE579; (1996)5SCC281; [1996]Supp1SCR507
ORDER1. Concern for the protection of ecology and for preventing irreversible ecological damage of the coastal areas of the country has led to the filing of the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as a public interest litigation.2. The main grievance in this petition is that a Notification dated 19.2.1991 declaring coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zones (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation Zones which regulates the activities in the said zones has not been implemented or enforced. This has led to continued degradation of ecology in the said coastalareas. There is also a challenge to the validity of the Notification dated 18.8.1994 whereby the first Notification dated 19.2.1991 has been amended, resulting in further relaxations of the provisions of 1991 Notification and such relation, it is alleged, will help in defeating the intent of the main Notification itself.3, he petitioner is a registered voluntary organisation working for the case of env...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1585; 2004(2)AWC1840(SC); 97(2004)CLT806(SC); JT2004(2)SC258; 2004(2)SCALE277; (2004)3SCC674
Ashok Bhan, J. 1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court in dismissing the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Original Jurisdiction Case No. 165 of 1992) the writ petitioners-appellants have filed the present appeal.2. In the writ petition the appellants challenged their liability to pay minimum charges to the Orissa State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') under the provisions of the State Electricity Board (General Conditions of Supply) Regulations of 1981 (for short 'the Regulations') framed under Section 79(j) & (k) read with Section 49A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short 'Supply Act'). Clause 31(e) of the Regulations provides:'Every consumer shall during the continuance of agreement also pay, when required, the monthly minimum charges even if no electricity is consumed for any reasons, wheresoever, or supply has been disconnected and also if the monthly charges for electricity actually consumed much less than the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2649; 2009(3)AWC2740(SC); 2009(57)BLJR2083; 2009(6)BomCR413; 2010(I)OLR(SC)452; 2009(5)SCALE559; (2009)6SCC99; 2009(6)LC2774(SC); 2009AIRSCW4075
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Effect of the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') by reason of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (for short 'the 2005 Act') insofar as therein Section 23 has been omitted is the question involved herein.3. The said question arises in the following factual matrix.The property in suit was owned by one Govinda Singh. He purported to have executed a Will in favour of his son, the appellant herein on 29.11.1995. His wife Sakunthala Bai predeceased him. The said Govinda Singh died on 9.01.1996 leaving behind the appellant (original defendant No. 1) and four daughters, viz., Geetha and Vijaya (plaintiffs) and Shanthi and Uma (original defendant Nos. 2 and 3).Indisputably, the parties to the suit were residing in the premises in suit. Govinda Singh was also a government contractor. He was running a business of transport. His daughters were also partners in the firm. Inter alia on the premise that Govinda Singh died intest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)ALT23(SC); 2007(1)AWC627(SC); 2006(5)CTC874; (2007)145PLR332; 2006(13)SCALE332; 2006(2)LC1557(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant -Bank filed a suit against the respondent. The suit related to ownership of a plot admeasuring 610 ft. x 250 ft. situated in the town Yadgir. It was purchased by the plaintiff in a public auction. Allegedly, the respondent is now claiming back the said amount. The suit was initially filed for a decree for injunction. The respondent filed another suit in the same court also for a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Bank from constructing any building. The suit of the appellant was dismissed whereas the suit of the respondent was decreed. Appeals were preferred there against by both the parties. In the said appeals, an application was filed for grant of leave to amend the plaint. The said application for grant of leave to amend the plaint was allowed by the appellate court by an order dated 7.04.2003. The appellate court remanded both the suits to the trial court for their disposal afresh on merits. Second Appeals were filed by the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)719; 2004(2)AWC1709(SC); JT2004(5)SC386; 2004(3)SCALE369; (2004)3SCC445; 2004(2)LC1213(SC)
1. The appellant is in possession of a piece of property included in survey No. 54/4 located within the jurisdiction of village panchayat of Colva, Salcete, Goa. It is the appellant's own case, vide para 4 of the writ petition, that earlier there existed a structure of thatched roof supported by laterite stone pillars, which structure was used by sun bathers and visitors. However, in place of old construction, appellant commenced putting up fresh construction which resulted into a pucca building coming up in existence in place of the old structure.2. The new building is now structure of laterite stones and cement with a concrete roof. This construction was commenced on 13.7.1994 and completed on 17.8.1994. Two writ petitions came to be filed in the High Court of Bombay at Goa. CWP No. 76 of 1995 was filed by the appellant's neighbour seeking demolition of the construction put up by the appellant. CWP No. 237 of 1999 was filed by the appellant seeking protection of the construction rais...
Tag this Judgment!