Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-01-1933
Reported in : AIR1933Bom398; (1933)35BOMLR630
Patkar, J.1. The property in suit belonged to one Somchand, the father of the minor plaintiff. After Somchand's death, the mother of the plaintiff Amrutbai entered into an agreement to sell the property in suit for Rs. 10,251 to defendant No. 2, the appellant, in 1917, and applied to the High Court on the Original Side in February 1918 to be appointed guardian of her minor son, the plaintiff Amarchand, of his person and property. In March 1918, she was appointed guardian of the person and property, and permission was granted to her to complete the agreement. In April 1918, a sale deed, Exhibit 64, was executed by her in favour of defendant No. 2. He carried out improvements and also fought out a litigation in respect of the land. After the death of the plaintiff's mother, the paternal uncle of the minor plaintiff brought a suit on the Original Side of the High Court in 1924 for setting aside the appointment of the mother as guardian and for rescission of the agreement of sale, and mesn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-13-1933
Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee - 288 U.S. 517 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517 (1933) Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee No. 301 Argued January 12, 13, 1933 Decided March 13, 1933 288 U.S. 517 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Syllabus 1. A state tax (Florida Laws 1931, c. 15624) on the privilege of opening and maintaining stores fixed at so much per store without regard to value or volume of business, and increasing progressively with the number of stores maintained by the owners taxed, is not in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because of the resulting discrimination against them and in favor of owners of single and department stores or the owners of distinct stores in voluntary cooperation. State Board of Tax Comm'rs v. Jackson, 283 U. S. 527 . P. 288 U. S. 532 . 2. A state statutory provision laying a heavier privilege tax per store on the owner whose stores are in different counties than on the ow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-10-1933
United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. - 289 U.S. 178 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178 (1933) United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. Nos. 316, 317, and 318 Argued January 13, 16, 1933 Decided April 10, 1933 289 U.S. 178 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. One who is employed to invent is bound by contractual obligation to assign the patent for the invention to his employer. P. 289 U. S. 187 . Page 289 U. S. 179 2. Where the contract of employment does not contemplate invention, but an invention is made by the employee during the hour of his employment and with the aid of the employer's materials and appliances, the right of patent belongs to the employee, and the employer's interest in the invention is limited to a nonexclusive right to practice a "shop right." P. 289 U. S. 188 . 3. These principles are settled as respects private employment, and they apply also as between...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-08-1933
FRC v. Nelson Brothers Bond & Mortgage Co. - 289 U.S. 266 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court FRC v. Nelson Brothers Bond & Mortgage Co., 289 U.S. 266 (1933) Federal Radio Commission v. Nelson Brothers Bond & Mortgage Co. (Station WIBO) No. 657 Argued April 11, 1933 Decided May 8, 1933 * 289 U.S. 266 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. Congress can confer administrative authority on courts of the District of Columbia, but jurisdiction to review administrative questions cannot be exercised by this Court. P. 289 U. S. 274 . 2. Under the amended Radio Act, which limits review of the Radio Commission by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia to "questions of law" and provides "that findings of fact by the Commission, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive unless it shall clearly appear that the findings of the Commission are arbitrary or capricious," the function of that court is no longer administrative, but is p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-08-1933
Reported in : 147Ind.Cas.707; (1933)65MLJ420
Ramesam, J.1. In this appeal a preliminary objection is taken that the appeal does not lie to this Court. For the purpose of deciding the objection we have to see what the nature of the suit is. The suit was for a declaration that the properties which are the subject-matter of the suit do not belong to the 2nd defendant but belong to the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 and that the 1st defendant had no power to bring them to sale as the properties of the 2nd defendant and for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from selling them. Under the Court-Fees Act, Section 7(4) the plaintiff has got to value the injunction and pay Court-fees ad valorem on it. Prior to the amendment of the Court-Fees Act in 1922 the plaintiff might have given any valuation he liked. But the amendment prescribes a minimum valuation which is half the value of the land. Here the value of the suit properties is Rs. 8,000 and therefore the plaintiff had to value the relief at not less than Rs. 4,000....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-22-1933
Ex Parte La Prade - 289 U.S. 444 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte La Prade, 289 U.S. 444 (1933) Ex Parte La Prade No. 21, Original Argued April 17, 18, 1933 Decided May 22, 1933 289 U.S. 444 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS Syllabus 1. A suit against a state officer in a federal court, alleging that a state statute is unconstitutional, that the defendant threatens to enforce it by suing colori officii for drastic penalties prescribed by the statute for its violation, and so will subject the plaintiff to irreparable injury unless enjoined, is a suit against the defendant as an individual, Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 . P. 289 U. S. 455 . 2. Such a suit abates upon the defendant's retirement from office, unless it can be revived against his successor under authority of a statute. P. 289 U. S. 456 . 3. Arizona laws do not provide for substitution of the successor. Irwin v. Wright, 258 U. S. 219 . P. 289 U. S. 456 . 4. Section 780(b),...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-03-1933
Reported in : AIR1933All764
Mukherji, J.1. This is a revision purporting to have been filed under Section 115, Civil P.C., and Section 107, Government of India Act. It arises out of an election petition filed by the applicant, Mr. Ghulam Nizam Uddin, against the opposite party, Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan. The respondent was elected a member of the District Board of Agra and his election was challenged by the applicant. The respondent produced before the District Judge, who heard the election petition, a document, said to have been signed by the applicant, by which it was alleged, he said that he had agreed for a consideration of Rs. 50, which he had already received, to withdraw the case, as he, the applicant, was aware of the weakness of his case. The District Judge inquired into the allegation of this adjustment of the election petition before him, and having come to the conclusion that the matter in dispute had been adjusted as alleged, he dismissed the petition.2. In this Court the applicant has challenged the va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-03-1933
Reported in : 147Ind.Cas.148
Mukerji, J.1. This is a revision purporting to have been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 107 of the Government of India Act. It arises out of an election petition filed by the applicant, Mr. Ghulam Nizam Uddin, against the opposite party, Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan. The respondent was elected a member of the District Board of Agra and his election was challenged by the applicant. The Respondent produced before the District Judge, who heard the election petition, a document, said to have been signed by the applicant, by which it was alleged, he said that he had agreed for a consideration of Rs. 50 which he had already received, to withdraw the case, as he, the applicant was aware of the weakness of his case. The District Judge inquired into the allegation of this adjustment of the election petition before him, and having come to the conclusion that the matter in dispute had been adjusted as alleged, he dismissed the petition.2. In this Court the applicant has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-24-1933
Reported in : 147Ind.Cas.238
1. (September 13, 1933.)--Sheo Janak Pandey, Brahmin, was charged in the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Ballia under Section 376, of the Indian Penal Code, with the rape of Musammat Ratni, a small girl 12 years of age. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. The Local Government appeals.2. At or about noon on October 25, 1932, in the village of Piaria this small girl was engaged in cutting grass in an arhar field. It was alleged by the prosecution that Sheo Janak Pandey, a youth of 16 years of age, came to her and asked her to go with him to a neighbouring field in order to help him to put a bundle upon his head. The girl refused and was threatened by Sheo Janak Pandey. She went with him to his arhar field, and there she was ravished. To prove this case the prosecution called two eye witnesses, Bechu and Rajrup. These witnesses stated that they also were engaged in cutting grass in a neighbouring field; that they heard the shouts of the girl and ran up to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-06-1933
United States v. Reilly - 290 U.S. 33 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Reilly, 290 U.S. 33 (1933) United States v. Reilly No. 31 Argued October 18, 19, 1933 Decided November 6, 1933 290 U.S. 33 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Act of June 21, 1906, provides: "All restrictions as to sale and incumbrance of all lands, inherited and otherwise, of all adult Kickapoo Indians, and of all Shawnee" and other named Indians "who have heretofore been or are now known as Indians of said tribes, affiliating with said Kickapoo Indians now or hereafter nonresident in the United States, who have been allotted land in Oklahoma or Indian Territory are hereby removed." Then follow provisos that "any such Indian allottee who is a nonresident of the United States may lease his allotment without restriction for a period not exceeding five years," and that the parent or next of kin having care and custody of a minor allottee may lease his a...
Tag this Judgment!