Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC320; JT1991(6)SC184; 1991(2)SCALE844; (1991)4SCC699; [1991]Supp2SCR1
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.These writ petitions raise certain constitutional issues of quite some importance bearing on the construction of Articles 121 and 124 of the Constitution of India and of the 'The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968' even as they in the context in which they are brought, are somewhat unfortunate.Notice was given by 108 members of the 9th Lok Sabha, the term of which came to an end upon its dissolution, of a Motion for presenting an Address to the President for the removal of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of this Court. On 12th March, 1991, the motion was admitted by the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha who also proceeded to constitute a Committee consisting of Mr. Justice P.B. Sawant, a sitting Judge of this Court, Mr. Justice P.D. Desai, Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay, and Mr. Justice O. Chinappa Reddy, a distinguished jurist in terms of Section 3(2) of The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.The occasion for such controversy as is raised in these proceedings is the refusal of the Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. MCCARTY - 2 U.S. 86 (1781) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. MCCARTY, 2 U.S. 86 (1781) 2 U.S. 86 (Dall.) Republica v. M'Carty* Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1781 The defendant was indicted for High-Treason, in levying war, &c.; by joining the armies of the King of Great Britain. On the trial, the Attorney General offered to give the confession of the party in evidence made at the time of his arraignment; but Ingersoll objected, that a confession could only be admitted to be given in evidence by way of corroboration, and that, therefore, an overt act should be first proved. Fost. 10. 240. Bradford, Attorney General, contended, that the confession proved by two witnesses was of itself sufficient; but that, independent of that position, it was not necessary to prove the overt act, before the admission of the confession; and he referred to 5 Bac. Abr. 152. By the Court: No case of this kind has hitherto occurred in this Court. In the case of the Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
TAYLOR v. KNOX - 1 U.S. 158 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court TAYLOR v. KNOX, 1 U.S. 158 (1785) 1 U.S. 158 (Dall.) Taylor and Finlayson v. Knox, et al. Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County. December Term, 1785 Foreign attachments. In these cases rules had been obtained to show cause of action, and why the attachments should not be quashed. On the argument, the garnishee Henderson (who was also a copartner with the defendants) produced several witnesses, by whose testimony the following facts were established: That David Knox came to Philadelphia in the spring of 1784; that he brought furniture with him, hired a dwelling house and store, and professed an intention 'to lay his bones here.' That he went to Virginia in February 1785, and sailed thence to England, in consequence of receiving intelligence of some misconduct of another partner, named Cowan, who resided there, and had never been in America. That during his absence, and at the time of laying the attachments, the copart...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
PIRATE v. DALBY - 1 U.S. 167 (1786) U.S. Supreme Court PIRATE v. DALBY, 1 U.S. 167 (1786) 1 U.S. 167 (Dall.) Pirate, alias Belt v. Dalby Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1786 Since the act for the gradual abolition of slavery, a number of persons have formed a society in Philadelphia, for the purpose of relieving those of their fellow creatures, who are held in illegal slavery; and this action is owing to that institution. The plaintiff, being the supposed issue of white and mulattoe parents, attended the defendant to Philadelphia in the autumn of 1784, and presented so pure a complexion, that the attention of the society was excited, and a writ of Hubeas corpus taken out at their instance. The boy's right to freedom was first argued before Mr. Justice Bryan, and, the next day, before the same judge, and the CHIEF JUSTICE, at their chambers; when the facts being disputed, the CHIEF JUSTICE advised the counsel to throw the case into the form of an action de Homine r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
PHILE v. THE ANNA - 1 U.S. 197 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court PHILE v. THE ANNA, 1 U.S. 197 (1787) 1 U.S. 197 (Dall.) Phile qui tam v. The Ship Anna Court of Common Pleas, of Philadelphia County. June Term, 1787 This was an information filed by the Naval Officer of the port of Philadelphia, against the ship Anna, lately arrived from Bristol upon the discovery of Peter Cooper, that forty two hampers of porter, part of her cargo, had been landed, without being first duly entered at the Collector's office, conformably to a law of this State, passed the fifteenth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, which enacts, among other things, 'That every vessel or boat, from which any goods, wares, or merchandize, shall be unladed before due entry thereof, at the office of the Collector, of the port of Philadelphia, and every carriage into which any such goods shall be first put or loaded, after removal from such vessel or boat, together with the horse, horses, or cattle ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
WILLIAMS v. CRAIG - 1 U.S. 313 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court WILLIAMS v. CRAIG, 1 U.S. 313 (1788) 1 U.S. 313 (Dall.) Williams v. Craig Supreme Court of Pennsylvania July Term, 1788 This cause being referred, a report was made in favor of the Plaintiff for a considerable amount, to which the following Page 1 U.S. 313, 314 exceptions were filed, and argued on the 12th of July, by J. B. M'Kean, Lewis, and Ingersoll for the Defendant; and Sergeant and Coultburst for the Plaintiff: 1st. That the Referrees heard the Plaintiff's witness ex parte. 2nd. That they heard the Plaintiff ex parte, without giving notice to the Defendant. 3rd, That they have allowed interest upon an unsettled account. 4th, That they refused to allow a set off. 5th, That the Defendant has discovered new and material testimony since the report. 6th, That the Referrees allowed a charge for Premium and Commissions in making an Insurance for the Defendant, without requiring the Plaintiff to produce the policy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
HOARE v. ALLEN - 2 U.S. 102 (1789) U.S. Supreme Court HOARE v. ALLEN, 2 U.S. 102 (1789) 2 U.S. 102 (Dall.) Hoare v. Allen; and Tertenants Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1789 This was a Scire Facias on a mortgage given on the 4th December, 1773, for securing the payment of L 16,000, sterling, with interest. It was tried at Chester, Nisi Prius, on the 4th May, 1789, before the Chief Justice, Atlee, and Bryan, Justice; when it appeared, that the plaintiff was a British subject, resident in London; that Amos Strettle was his attorney in fact, at the time of the execution of the mortgage, and after: but it did not appear, whether he continued to act, as such subsequent to the war. He resided in the state till his death, which was about The question that was made in this cause was, whether interest should run during the war? The defendant, contended, that when two independent nations are at war, the debt is suspended, and no interest can be demanded. That all intercours...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. LACAZE - 2 U.S. 118 (1791) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. LACAZE, 2 U.S. 118 (1791) 2 U.S. 118 (Dall.) Respublica v. Lacaze, et. al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1791 This was an action of debt in the debet et detinet, for L 4000 sterling, equal to L. 6,666. 13. 8. currency, brought in the name of the commonwealth for the use of Lewis Lanoix, against James Lacaze, Michael Mallet, and John Ross, upon a writing signed by the defendants, dated the 4th of November 1783, and taken in the Court of Admiralty of Pennsylvania, in the nature of a caution, or stipulation. The information (which states the whole case) was in the following words: 'Philadelphia County ss. James Lacaze, Michael Mallet and John Ross, all late of the city of Philadelphia in the said county, merchants, were summoned to answer the commonwealth of Pennsylvania in a plea, Page 2 U.S. 118, 119 that they render to the said commonwealth for the use of Lewis Lanoix, the sum of six...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
GORGERAT v. MCCARTY - 2 U.S. 144 (1792) U.S. Supreme Court GORGERAT v. MCCARTY, 2 U.S. 144 (1792) 2 U.S. 144 (Dall.) Gorgerat et al. v. M'Carty Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January Term, 1792 This was an action brought by the indorsors, the payees against the acceptor of a Bill of Exchange; which was drawn in France, and had been several times indorsed, and judgment was confessed by the defendant, subject to the opinion of the Court,-whether possession of the bill and protest was sufficient evidence, without further proof, that the plaintiffs had paid the subsequent indorsee? Or, was prima facie evidence of such payment, sufficient, unless contrary evidence was produced, on the part of the defendant? The cause was argued on the 15th September, 1791, by Rawle and Duponceau, for the plaintiffs, and by Ingersoll for the defendant. For the plaintiffs it was urged, that upon general principles, the possession of the bill and protest, in this country, as well as in England, is su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Georgia v. Brailsford - 2 U.S. 402 (1792) U.S. Supreme Court Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 402 402 (1792) Georgia v. Brailsford 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 402 Syllabus An injunction was granted on the application of the State of Georgia to stay money in the hands of the Marshal of the State of Georgia which was claimed by that state under the confiscation act for the purpose of enabling the state to have the claim decided at law. This was a bill in equity filed by "His Excellency Edward Telfair, Esq., Governor and Commander in Chief in and over the State of Georgia, in behalf of the said state, complainant," against Samuel Brailsford, Robert Wm. Powell, and John Hopton, merchants and co-partners, and James Spalding, surviving partner of Kelsall & Spalding, defendants. The bill set forth the following case: "That on 4 May, 1782, the State of Georgia being then free, sovereign, and independent, enacted a law entitled 'An act for inflicting penalties on and confiscating the est...
Tag this Judgment!