Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-26-1995
New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co. - 514 U.S. 645 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD PLANS ET AL. v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 93-1408. Argued January 18, 1995-Decided April 26, 1995* A New York statute requires hospitals to collect surcharges from patients covered by a commercial insurer but not from patients insured by a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan, and also subjects certain health maintenance organizations (HMO's) to surcharges. Several commercial insurers and their trade associations filed actions against state officials, claiming that 514(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)-under which state laws that "relate to" any covered employee benefit plan are superseded-pre-empts the imposition of surcharges on bills of patients whose commercial insurance coverage is purc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-09-1995
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. - 514 U.S. 159 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus QUALITEX CO. v. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO., INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 93-1577. Argued January 9, 1995-Decided March 28,1995 Petitioner Qualitex Company has for years colored the dry cleaning press pads it manufactures with a special shade of green gold. Mter respondent Jacobson Products (a Qualitex rival) began to use a similar shade on its own press pads, Qualitex registered its color as a trademark and added a trademark infringement count to the suit it had previously filed challenging Jacobson's use of the green-gold color. Qualitex won in the District Court, but the Ninth Circuit set aside the judgment on the infringement claim because, in its view, the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) does not permit registration of color alone as a trademark. Held: The Lanham Act permits the registration of a trademark that consists, purely and simp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-19-1995
Celotex Corp. v. Edwards - 514 U.S. 300 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS ET ux. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 93-1504. Argued December 6, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995 The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered a judgment in favor of respondents and against petitioner Celotex Corp. To stay execution of the judgment pending appeal, petitioner posted a supersedeas bond, with an insurance company (Northbrook) serving as surety. Mter the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment, Celotex filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida. Exercising its equitable powers under 11 U. S. C. 105(a), the Bankruptcy Court issued an injunction, which, in pertinent part, prohibited judgment creditors from proceeding against sureties without the Bankruptcy Court's permission. Respondents thereafter filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-29-1995
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC579
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.; S.P. Bharucha and; K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.1. The members of the petitioner-Union comprise workmen engaged in the operation and maintenance of an air-conditioning plant in the complex owned by Respondent 2. The workmen contend that in order to deny them regular employment, Respondent 2 has engaged the services of Respondent 3, a Contractor. Taking the stand that Respondent 2 is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the petitioner-Union contends that the work which its members carry out at the plant in question is of a perennial nature and necessary for the maintenance of the plant and yet instead of engaging labour directly Respondent 2 has devised the method of engaging labour through a Contractor with a view to denying them security in service. The Union has, therefore, approached this Court for a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus to command the appropriate Government to issue a notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-24-1995
Reported in : JT1995(3)SC74; 1995(2)SCALE29; 1995Supp(2)SCC481; [1995]2SCR351
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted in C.A. Nos. 3039-40-95 S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 14935-14936 14935-14936 of 1994.2. Substitution allowed in Civil Appeal Nos. 3774-3775 of 1992.3. All these appeals raise a common question of law relating to the interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Principal Act') read with Tamil Nadu Act No. 17 of 1970 which is the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970. The latter Act is hereinafter referred to as 'the Reduction Act'. As the facts are different in each group of appeals, they are dealt with separately.CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3774-3775 OF 19924. The deceased, V. Gopal Reddiar, the first appellant and his wife, the second appellant in these appeals, held agricultural lands in excess of the ceiling limit on 6.4.1960, which is the date of commencement of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. under Section 5 of the Principal A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-15-1995
Reported in : (1995)128CTR(SC)361; [1995]216ITR759(SC); JT1995(6)SC549; 1995(5)SCALE362; (1995)6SCC396; [1995]Supp3SCR642
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. A seemingly simple expression, 'regular assessment', occurring in Section 214 of the Income Tax Act has given rise to an endless conflict as to its meaning among the several High Courts in the country. The first decision interpreting the expression was rendered as far back as 1957 by the Bombay High Court with reference to Sub-section (5) of Section 18A of the 1922 Act. Thereafter almost every High Court has pronounced upon the question expressing varying shades of opinion.LEGISLATIVE BACK GROUND:2. Prior to 1944, income tax was payable by the assessee only on an assessment being made by the Assessing Officer. Though the levy/charge was created by the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, the tax became payable only when it was ascertained in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In 1944, however, Section 18A was introduced providing for the payment of tax in advance, i.e., even prior to the making of the assessment. Section 18A incorporated the principle 'pay as yo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-16-1995
Reported in : AIR1996SC2833; JT1995(8)SC563; (1997)IILLJ856SC; 1995(6)SCALE779; (1996)7SCC577; [1995]Supp5SCR367
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. Leave granted.2. This bunch of appeals pertains to 1363 employees, viz., Clerks (Class III) and Attendants (Class IV), All the cases arise from judgments of Division Bench of the Patna High Court dated May 6, 1994 in C.W.J.C. No. 5163/93 and batch. The principal villain behind the scene is one Dr. A.A. Mallick, Deputy Director, Health Department of the Government of Bihar, in charge of Tuberculosis. He was Director of the Tuberculosis center at Patna. Eradication of Tuberculosis was taken up as a part of 20-point programme in Planned Expenditure. The activities in the Tuberculosis center at Patna were extended to various districts. Since Mallick happened to be the Director of the center, he was made Deputy Director of the Scheme. The Government had also issued directions to the District Medical Officers to abide by the instructions of Mallick in implementation of the programme. He was made the Chairman of the Selection Committee constituted by the Government con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-02-1995
Reported in : AIR1995SC2089; JT1995(5)SC205; 1996(7)KarLJ752; 1995(4)SCALE113; (1995)4SCC646; [1995]Supp1SCR745
ORDERN. Venkatachala, J.1. The sustainability of the common judgment of Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court rendered in appeals preferred against the order of dismissal of a Writ Petition by a learned single Judge of the same High Court by which the claim of the followers of Ramakrishna that an educational institution established and administered by their Ramakrishna Mission receives protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India being an educational institution established and administered in exercise of their fundamental right as a minority based on religion and under Article 26(a) of the Constitution of India being an educational institution established and maintained in exercise of their fundamental right as a religious denomination or a Section thereof, is upheld, since arises for our consideration in the present appeals filed against that judgment, all of them could be disposed of by this judgment.2. As the writ petition filed in the High Court, which has led t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-11-1995
Reported in : AIR1996SC826; JT1995(9)SC73; 1995(7)SCALE72; (1996)1SCC399; [1995]Supp6SCR492
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by the returned candidate under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the R.P. Act') against the judgment dated 5th/6th August, 1991 in Election Petition No. 21 of 1990 by S.N. Variava, J. of the Bombay High Court whereby the election of the appellant to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 49-Kurla Legislative Constituency held on 27.2.1990 has been declared to be void on the ground under Section 100(1)(b) for commission of corrupt practices under Sub-sections (3) and (3A) of the R.P. Act. By the said judgment, the learned Judge has decided the election petition and made the order under Section 98 declaring the election of the appellant to be void but the findings on issue Nos. 2 and 5 have been reserved for being recorded after the inquiry under Section 99 of the R.P. Act is concluded against Chhagan Bhujbal, Pramod Mahajan, Bal Thackeray, Manohar Joshi and Pramod Navalkar to whom notices have been issued u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-28-1995
Reported in : AIR1995SC2109; (1995)125CTR(SC)124; [1995]214ITR801(SC); JT1995(3)SC393; 1995(2)SCALE490; 1995Supp(2)SCC453
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. These appeals filed by the assessee against the order dated February 24,1977 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Settlement Commission'), relate to assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The appellant carries on business as a dealer in art pieces, antiques and curios at Bangalore. During the assessment year 1971-72 the appellant received a total amount of Rs. 3,11,831/- by way of race winnings in Jackpots and Treble events in races at Turf Clubs in Bangalore, Madras and Hyderabad. The said amount was shown by the appellant in the capital account in the books. The appellant filed a return on March 27, 1972 declaring an income of Rs. 27,829/-. The appellant also made a sworn statement on January 6, 1973 before the Income Tax Officer and on the basis of the said statement the Income Tax Officer made an assessment order dated March 27, 1974 wherein he held that the sum of Rs. 3,11,831/- is not winnings in races and he treat...
Tag this Judgment!