Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-19-1974
Parker v. Levy - 417 U.S. 733 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974) Parker v. Levy No. 73-206 Argued February 20, 1974 Decided June 19, 1974 417 U.S. 733 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus Article 90(2) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Code) provides for punishment of any person subject to the Code who "willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer"; Art. 133 punishes a commissioned officer for "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman"; and Art. 134 (the general article) punishes any person subject to the Code for, inter alia, "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces," though not specifically mentioned in the Code. Appellee, an Army physician assigned to a hospital, was convicted by a general court-martial of violating Art. 90(2) for disobeying the hospital commandant's order to establish a training program for Sp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-08-1974
United States v. Maze - 414 U.S. 395 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395 (1974) United States v. Maze No. 72-1168 Argued November 13-14, 1973 Decided January 8, 1974 414 U.S. 395 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent was convicted of violating the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1341, by devising a scheme to defraud through unlawfully obtaining possession from one Meredith of a credit card issued by a Louisville bank, which respondent used to obtain goods and services from motel operators in various States knowing that the operators to whom he presented the card for payment would mail the sales slips to the Louisville bank, which would in turn mail them to Meredith. Section 1341 makes it a crime, inter alia, for a person who has devised a scheme to defraud or for obtaining money or property by means of false pretenses for the purpose of executing the scheme knowingly to cause to be deliv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-21-1974
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida - 414 U.S. 661 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974) Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, New York No. 72-851 Argued November 6-7, 1973 Decided January 21, 1974 414 U.S. 661 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioners brought this action for the fair rental value for a specified period of certain land in New York that the Oneidas had ceded to the State in 1795, alleging, inter alia, that the Oneidas had owned and occupied the land from time immemorial to the time of the American Revolution; that, in the 1780's and 1790's, various treaties with the United States had confirmed their right to possession of the land until purchased by the United States; that, in 1790, the treaties had been implemented by the Nonintercourse Act forbidding the conveyance of Indian lands without the United States' consent; and that the 1795 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-09-1974
Marshall v. United States - 414 U.S. 417 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Marshall v. United States, 414 U.S. 417 (1974) Marshall v. United States No. 72-5881 Argued October 16-17, 1973 Decided January 9, 1974 414 U.S. 417 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner, who had three prior felony convictions, moved for commitment as a narcotic addict pursuant to Title II of the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966 (NARA), following a fourth felony conviction. The District Court held that the NARA's "two prior felony" exclusion precluded the requested commitment, rejecting petitioner's post-sentence motion to vacate his sentence on the ground that the "two prior felony" exclusion violated equal protection as embodied in the Fifth Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: Title II of NARA does not deny due process or equal protection by excluding from rehabilitative commitment, in lieu of penal incarceration, addicts with two...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-04-1974
Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting - 415 U.S. 394 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting, 415 U.S. 394 (1974) Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. No. 72-1628 Argued January 7, 1974 Decided March 4, 1974 * 415 U.S. 394 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Several creators and producers of copyrighted television programs brought this suit claiming that defendants had infringed their copyrights by intercepting broadcast transmissions of copyrighted material and rechanneling these programs through various community antenna television (CATV) systems to paying subscribers. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the cause of action was barred by this Court's decision in Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artist Television, 392 U. S. 390 . On appeal, the Court of Appeals divided CATV systems into two categories for copyright purposes: (1) those where the broa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-20-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC960; [1974(28)FLR406]; 1974LabIC707; (1974)ILLJ489SC; (1974)1SCC596; [1974]3SCR665
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenge the validity of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 referred to as the Act and of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules and Rules of the States of Rajasthan and Maharashtra.2. The petitioners carry en the business of contractors for construction of roads, buildings, weigh bridges and dams.3. The Act requires contractors to take out licences. The Act also imposes certain duties and liabilities on the contractOrs.4. The Act defines in Section 2(c) a 'contractor' in relation to an establishment to mean a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or ' articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor.5. The other definitions relevant to the meaning of a contractor are establishment, principa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-11-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC2009; (1974)2SCC402a; [1975]1SCR1
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. These appeals and writ petitions relate to the legality of certain proceedings taken under Chapter V-A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955. Chapter V-A was introduced in the Bombay Municipal Act, 1888 by Maharashtra Act 14 of 1961. That chapter contains Sections 105A and 105B. According to the provisions of those sections the Commissioner in relation to premises belonging to or vesting in, or taken on lease by the corporation and the General Manager (also defined as the Commissioner) of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking in relation to premises of the corporation which vest in it for the purposes of that undertaking were granted certain powers of eviction in respect of unauthorised occupation of any corporation premises. Unauthorised occupation is defined as occupation by any person of corporation premises without authority for such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-01-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC1380; (1974)2SCC453; [1975]1SCR394
Y.V. Chandrachud, J. 1. In this appeal by special leave from the judgment of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta, two questions are raised for our consideration on behalf of the appellants who have obtained against the respondent a decree for eviction: (1) whether the decree of the trial court has merged in the decree of the High Court and (2) whether by reason of Section 17D of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 the decree for eviction is incapable of execution.2. Long, long back on May 19, 1953 Messrs. Hind State Private Ltd., the predecessors-in-title of the appellants, filed against the respondent a suit for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. On November 24, 1958 the learned Second Munsif, Alipore, passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffs holding that by reason of defaults in the payment of rent, the respondent was not entitled to the protection of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. That dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-17-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC1818; 1974CriLJ885; (1974)4SCC222; [1974]3SCR133
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. These appeals are brought by leave granted by the High Court of Calcutta under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution.2. Cr. A. No. 114 of 1970: On May 29, 1968 gold bars and sovereigns bearing foreign markings were seized from the respondents by customs officers, Calcutta. Respondents were charged under Section 135, Customs Act, 1962 for being in possession of goods which they had reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under Section 111 of that Act. It was alleged that the goods were imported into India without the requisite permit and without payment of duty and were therefore liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The respondents were also charged under Rules 126P(1)(i) and 126P(2)(ii) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, for failure to make a declaration in respect of the gold found in their possession.3. The respondents pleaded guilty to the charges but cited facts in extenuation of the offences. The learned Presidency Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-21-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC1692; (1974)1SCC608; [1974]3SCR440
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. 1. In the three writ petitions filed by the respective respondents challenging the vires of r. 70 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. 1964-hereinafter called 'the Act'-the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that rule to be ultra vires the Board of Directors of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Central Land Mortgage Bank Ltd.,-hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Land Mortgage Bank. These appeals are by special leave against that judgment.2. The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2229/72 is an Assistant Accountant in the Chittor Primary Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. In Civil Appeal No. 2230/72 the respondents are employees of the different Co-operative Land Mortgage Banks. The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2231/72 is the Nellore Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. In the first of the appeals the petitioner/respondent complained that when he was due for promotion for the post of an Accountant, under Rule 70 his right to promotion based on seniority...
Tag this Judgment!