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
1. Leave is granted in all these matters. This batch of seven appeals raises common questions of law which have been dealt with in this judgment.2. Facts in each case are separately noted:3. In February 2006, Smt. Shanta Devi was elected Pramukh in the election of the Kshettra Panchayat of Jahanaganj, district Azamgarh.4. In 2007, an amendment was made to the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 1961 Act) through Amendment Act no. 44 of 2007 (hereinafter called the Amendment Act) to make the State Act compatible with Part IX of which contains constitutional provisions relating to Panchayats.5. In view of some serious allegations against Smt. Shanta Devi, a no confidence motion was passed against her. Smt. Shanta Devi challenged before the High Court the constitutional validity of the U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2007 dated 20.08.2007 (which later on became the U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007, i.e. the Amendment Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR2966; 2009LC(SC)246; 2009(5)LC2440(SC)
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION35. The Commission passed a fairly detailed order. It took into consideration the factual matrix ; the nature of agreements ; submissions of BEST; its earlier orders ; contentions raised by BEST in its original application as also revised petitions ; firm capacity and other details.36. It noticed that a Technical Validation Session in case No. 87 of 2006 was held on 18th April, 2007 including justification for entering into a long term contract for ten years taking into account the demand forecast during peak and off-peak hours and analysis of other sources of power and availability of transmission capacity in future. It also took into account the basis for arriving at 10 paise/kwh surcharge payable by TPC (G) to BEST in case the availability of generating stations of TPC (G) falls below 85% alongwith supporting computations. It also noticed the mechanism for assessing the amount of compensation payable in case of termination due to events of default may be incor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008BusLR469(SC); (2008)216CTR(SC)289; [2008]301ITR309(SC); 2008(8)SCALE223; 2008AIRSCW4096
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation and/or application of the provisions of Section 115WB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') providing for imposition of tax on 'fringe benefits' is in question herein.3. Before embarking upon the said question, however, we may notice the basic fact of the matter.Appellant is incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is engaged in the business of providing Mobile Offshore Drilling Rig (MODR) along with crew on a day rate charter hire basis to drill offshore wells. The MODR operates offshore (upto 200 nautical miles off the coast of India). Allegedly, having regard to the harsh working environment and purported to be in line with global practices typical to such industry, the employees who may be residents of various countries including Australia, USA, UK, France etc. work on the MODR on a 'commuter basis'. They come to India, stay in the Rig for 28 days and go back to their own country being their place...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC595; 2008(56)BLJR251; 2007(12)SCALE644; 2007AIRSCW7633
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The brief facts of the case are that six petitioners in CWJC No. 7253 of 1998 before the Patna High Court who had obtained GAMS (Graduate of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) degree from the State Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines (for short 'the Faculty') established under Section 17 of the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine Act, 1951 (for short 'the 1951 Act') were not permitted to appear in the examination for admission in Post Graduate Course in Ayurved leading to award of Degree of Doctor of Medicine in Ayurved. It was the case of the petitioners that they had passed the GAMS examination conducted by the Faculty under the 1951 Act and were conferred GAMS degree by the Faculty and, thus, they were qualified to appear in the examination for obtaining the Degree of Doctor of Medicine in Ayurved. After service of notice, the respondents entered appearance and the State filed reply wherein the stand taken by the State was that GAMS Deg...
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 : AIR2003SC3397; 97(2004)CLT284(SC); 2003(4)CTC98; 107(2003)DLT137(SC); JT2003(Suppl1)SC428; 2003(8)SCALE190; (2003)8SCC413
V.N. Khare, C.J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th August, 2001 of the High Court of Delhi, which raises a question, whether a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is entitled to obtain Letter of Administration under Section 236 of the Indian Succession Act (in short 'the Act')?3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are these: 4. One Ratan Lal executed a Will on 15.10.1977 bequeathing a part of his estate to Jain Bal Ashram which is run by the Jain Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') formed for protection of orphans in India. The Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. On 4th March, 1978, Ratan Lal, the testator died. On his demise, the Society submitted an application before the Court for grant of Letter of Administration in pursuance of Will executed by late Ratan Lal, under Section 276 of the Act. The said petition was contested by the appellant and on her death by h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(12)SCALE656; (2009)10SCC531; 2009(9)LC4474(SC)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This batch of ten appeals by special leave raises identical issues and emanates from a common order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Meerut Division, Meerut and, therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of each appeal as narration of facts in Civil Appeal No. 3058 of 2008 would suffice for deciding the controversy raised in this group of appeals.3. On January 24, 2002, the Additional Collector (Finance/Revenue) (for short, `Prescribed Authority'), Gautambudh Nagar issued a notice under Section 9(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short, `Act, 1960') calling upon the appellants to file details of the land held by them in Ceiling Land Holding Form No. 2 (for short, `CLH Form-2') along with enclosures within a period of thirty days from the date of notice.4. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice under Section 9(2), the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)4MLJ696(SC); 2008(7)SCALE255; (2008)5SCC1; 2008(3)SLJ189(SC); 2008(3)Supreme651
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. In this writ application under Article 32 of the Constitution moved at the instance of Dr.P.Venugopal, a renowned and internationally famed Cardio Vascular Surgeon, calls in question the constitutional validity of the proviso to Sub-section (1A) of Section 11 of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (Amendment) Act, 2007.2. The writ petitioner was admittedly the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (in short the 'AIIMS') immediately prior to the commencement of the added provisions and by virtue of the legislative command contained in the added provision he had been made to demit his office as Director of the said Institute from the date of coming into force of this added provision.3. The writ petitioner claims and it does not appear to be disputed that he was a Gold Medalist in his batch of MBBS, passed out from the AIIMS itself and thereafter he acquired qualification of MS and MCH in cardio vascular surgery and that he served the Institute...
Tag this Judgment!