Court : US Supreme Court
Ferguson v. Georgia - 365 U.S. 570 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570 (1961) Ferguson v. Georgia No. 44 Argued November 14-15, 1960 Decided March 27, 1961 365 U.S. 570 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA Syllabus The Georgia Code, 38-416, makes a person charged with a criminal offense incompetent to testify under oath in his own behalf at his trial; but 38-415 gives him the right to make an unsworn statement to the jury without subjecting himself to cross-examination. At the trial in a state court in which appellant was convicted of murder, his counsel was denied the right to ask him any questions when he took the stand to make his unsworn statement. Held: this application of 38-415 denied appellant the effective assistance of his counsel at a crucial point in his trial, and it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 365 U. S. 570 -596. 215 Ga. 117, 109 S.E.2d 44, reversed. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1433; [1962]1SCR607; [1961]12STC379(SC)
S.K. Das, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Madras. The firm of Messrs. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Ennore, is the appellant before us. For brevity and convenience, we shall hereinafter refer to the firm as the assessee. The State of Madras through the Commercial Tax Officer, Saidapet, is the respondent before us. 2. The assessee is a firm with its factory at Ennore in the State of Madras, where it manufactures, assembles and sells motor vehicles and spare parts and accessories thereof, through an elaborate organisation spread over several States. It is, perhaps, necessary to indicate briefly the organisational set up in order to appreciate the point on which the case was heard in the High Court and argued before us. The system of distribution of its motor vehicles, spare parts and accessories at one uniform price to consumers in the various States which the assesses adopted, consisted of the appointment of a distributor (called a dealer) with a definite terr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962]1SCR633
Hidayatullah, J.1. This appeal, by certificate under Arts. 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution, has been filed against an order of the High court at Nagpur dated June 30, 1955. 2. Though the facts necessary to decide the appeal lie within a comparatively narrow compass, the case itself has had a long and somewhat unique history. In July, 1922, the Municipal Committee, Khandwa, resolved to impose a tax on the trade of ginning and pressing cotton by means of steam or mechanical process, and after sundry procedure, a notification was published on November 25, 1922 in the Central Provinces and Berar Gazette, imposing the tax. Certain traders including the appellant, affected by the tax, filed suits seeking injunction against the Municipal Committee on the ground that the tax was invalid and illegal. Meanwhile, the Municipal Committee had served notices on the present appellant, and demanded and recovered the tax for 1923-24. The appellant then filed a second suit for refund of the tax...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC73; [1962]1SCR702
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, confirming the decree of the trial Judge dismissing the suit. It comes before us on a certificate under Arts. 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Rajasthan after the Reorganisation of the States. 2. The suit was filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 23,998-12-0 as price of goods supplied in the year 1947 to the Ruler of Jaipur State, (including interest) and damages suffered by the appellant due to the refusal of the defendants to take delivery of some other goods similarly ordered. In addition to the ex-Ruler of Jaipur, his Military Secretary and one Mohabat Singh, an employee of the ex-Ruler, were also joined as defendants, on the plea that they had placed the orders as agents of the ex-Ruler. The suit was filed on February 28, 1951. The ex-Ruler raised the plea that the suit was incompetent, as the consent of the Central Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1633; [1961]42ITR589(SC); [1962]1SCR788
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. The respondents were the owners of a steamship called 'El Madina.' That was requisitioned by the Government during the last world war, and was lost by enemy action on 16 March, 1944. As compensation therefore, the Government paid the respondents Rs. 20,00,000 on 17 July, 1944, Rs. 23,00,000 on December 22, 1944, and Rs. 33,333 on 10 August, 1946. The original cost of the ship was Rs. 24,95,016 and its written down value at the commencement of the year of account was Rs. 15,68,484. The difference between the cost price and the written-done value, viz., Rs. 9,26,532, represents the deductions which had been allowed year after year on account of depreciation. As the total compensation received exceeded the cost price, the respondents have recouped themselves all the amounts deducted for depreciation. 2. On these facts, the point in controversy between the respondents and the Department is whether the amount of Rs. 9,26,532 is liable to be included in the total inco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1564; [1962]1SCR905
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. This appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. 2. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the property in suit which is situate at Mouje Digvale, a village held by khots in the district of Ratnagiri, was owned by him, was under his management and that the defendants had no right or interest therein. He claimed title to the property on the basis of the sale of occupancy rights under the sale deed executed in his favour by Sitabai on February 10, 1945. Sitabai was the widow of Vishram Anna Shirsat, who succeeded Ram Raghu Shirsat, the occupancy tenant of the land in suit. Ram Raghu Shirsat sold the occupancy rights in the land in suit to Laxman Chandba Raut by a deed dated March 8, 1892. By a compromise in a civil suit between the heirs of Laxman Chandba Raut and Tanu Daulat Gavade Sakaram, the heir of Laxman Raut got 3/5ths share and Tanu Daulat got 2/5ths share in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC92; [1961]42ITR761(SC); [1962]1SCR966
S.K. Das, J.1. One Ranjit Singh is the petitioner before us. The respondents are Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, the Income-tax Officer, Lucknow, and the Collectors of three districts in Uttar Pradesh, namely, Dehra Dun, Kanpur and Lucknow, being officers under whose orders certain properties of the petitioner and his family have been attached in pursuance of a notice of demand issued under s. 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in circumstances which we shall presently state. 2. The facts are shortly these. In 1948 the Central Government referred a number of cases in which the petitioner was concerned to the Income-tax Investigation Commission set up under the relevant provisions of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 (Act XXX of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act. On May 30, 1948, the Secretary of the Commission issued a notice to the petitioner to furnish a list of businesses or concerns in which the petitioner was interested and to produce the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1534; [1962]2SCR1; [1961]12STC429(SC)
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, its registered office being at Kanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and it is carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of jute goods. By a notification dated March 31, 1956, the State of Uttar Pradesh imposed a tax of one anna in the rupee on the sale proceeds of jute. Previously thereto, the tax payable on sale of jute was six pies in the rupee. This notification having been struck down by the High Court of Allahabad as unauthorised and inoperative, the State legislature enacted the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax (Validation) Act, 1958 (U.P. Act XV of 1958), hereinafter referred to as the Validation Act, validating the said notification as from March 31, 1956. In this petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India - Article 32, the petitioner contends that notwithstanding the Validation Act, the notification in question continues to be void and inoperative, because it has not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority - 365 U.S. 715 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961) Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority No. 164 Argued February 21, 23, 1961 Decided April 17, 1961 365 U.S. 715 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE Syllabus A restaurant located in a publicly owned and operated automobile parking building refused to serve appellant food or drink solely because he was a Negro. The building had been built with public funds for public purposes, and it was owned and operated by an agency of the State of Delaware, from which the private operator of the restaurant leased its premises. Claiming that refusal to serve him abridged his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, appellant sued in a state court for declaratory and injunctive relief against the restaurant and the state agency. The Supreme Court of Delaware held that he was not entitled to relief, on the ground that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1629; 1961CriLJ811; [1962]2SCR50
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is against the order of the Patna High Court dismissing the appellant's appeal against his conviction for offences under s. 161, Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947), hereinafter called the Act. 2. The appellant was the Construction Engineer at Sindhri R. B. Basu was a contractor living in Calcutta and carrying on the business of the company named and styled the Hindustan Engineering and Construction Company. The prosecution alleged, and the Courts below have found, that the appellant accepted the sum of Rs. 10,000 as illegal gratification from Basu at the Kelner's Restaurant at Dhanbad Railway Station on July 18, 1951. 3. The Courts disbelieved the appellant's defence that he had taken the envelope containing this amount not knowing that it contained this amount, but knowing that it contained papers relating to Basu's contracts. 4. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant a...
Tag this Judgment!