Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-30-1998
Bragdon v. Abbott - 524 U.S. 624 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus BRAGDON v. ABBOTT ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 97-156. Argued March 30, 1998-Decided June 25,1998 Respondent Abbott is infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), but had not manifested its most serious symptoms when the incidents in question occurred. At that time, she went to petitioner's office for a dental examination and disclosed her HIV infection. Petitioner discovered a cavity and informed respondent of his policy against filling cavities of HIV-infected patients in his office. He offered to perform the work at a hospital at no extra charge, though respondent would have to pay for use of the hospital's facilities. She declined and filed suit under, inter alia, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against any individual "on the basis of disability in the ... enjoyment of the ... services ... of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-08-1998
United States v. Beggerly - 524 U.S. 38 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus UNITED STATES v. BEGGERLY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-731. Argued April 27, 1998-Decided June 8, 1998 In 1979, the United States sued respondents and others to quiet title to land it sought for a federal park, contending that respondents did not have clear title because the Government had never patented the disputed land after acquiring it as part of the Louisiana Purchase. Government officials searched public land records during discovery, but reported to respondents that they found no proof of a grant to a private landowner. A 1982 settlement agreement quieted title in the Government's favor in return for a payment to respondents. In 1994, respondents sued to set aside the settlement agreement and obtain damages, claiming that they had evidence showing that the land had been granted to a private owner before the Louisiana Purchase, but the Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-21-1998
Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. - 523 U.S. 340 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus FELTNER v. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1768. Argued January 21, 1998-Decided March 31,1998 Respondent Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., terminated agreements licensing several television series to three television stations owned by petitioner Feltner after the stations' royalty payments became delinquent. When the stations continued to broadcast the programs, Columbia sued Feltner and others for, inter alia, copyright infringement. Columbia won partial summary judgment as to liability on its copyright infringement claims and then exercised the option afforded by 504(c) of the Copyright Act of 1976 (Act) to recover statutory damages in lieu of actual damages. The District Court denied Feltner's request for a jury trial, and awarded Columbia statutory damages following a bench trial. The Ninth Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-08-1998
Reported in : 1998VIIAD(SC)457; AIR1999SC468; JT1998(7)SC78; 1998(5)SCALE501; (1998)7SCC579; [1998]Supp2SCR143
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. These cases raise questions of general importance and practical significance - questions relating not only to the right to practise medical profession but also to the right to life which includes health and well-being of a person. The controversy in these cases was triggered off by the issuance of declarations by the State Governments under Clause (iii) of Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short 'the Drugs Rules') which defines 'Registered Medical Practitioner'. Under such declarations, notified Vaids/Hakims claim right to prescribe Allopathic drugs covered by the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Drugs Act'). Furthermore, Vaids/Hakims who have obtained degrees in integrated courses claim right to practise allopathic system of medicine.2. In exercise of the power under Clause (iii) of Rule 2(ee) the State of Punjab issued Notification No. 9874-THBTT-67/34526 dated 29.10.1967 declaring all the Vaids/Hakims who had b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-20-1998
Reported in : AIR1998SC2330; 1998(3)ALLMR(SC)640; JT1998(3)SC468; 1998(3)SCALE165; (1998)5SCC310; [1998]2SCR1032
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted.2. World Tanker Carrier Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ' WTCC' is the appellant in these appeals. WTCC is a foreign company registered in Monrovia, Liberia. It is the owner of a vessel m.t. 'New World'. The vessel is registered in Hong Kong. On 21st of December, 1994, New World was involved in a collision with a vessel m.v. 'YA Mawlaya' in international waters 200 nautical miles off the coast of Portugal. YA Mawlaya is a vessel registered in Cyprus. It is owned by M/S. Kara Mara Shipping Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Kara Mara'), a company registered in Cyprus. The said company is referred to variously in these proceedings as despondent owner/chartered of YA Mawlaya. On 20th October, 1994, Kara Mara sold the vessel YA Mawlaya to Vestman Shipping Company Ltd., a company registered in Cyprus. Kara Mara thereafter became bare boat charterers of YA Mawlaya. Prior to the sale of the said vessel, Kara Mara had entered into a mana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-12-1998
Reported in : AIR1998SC1005; 1998(2)CTC48; JT1998(1)SC673; (1998)IIMLJ11(SC); 1998(1)SCALE595; (1998)5SCC362; [1998]1SCR859
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. Leave granted. The only question before us is whether the lands gifted to Sumathi the unmarried daughter of deceased Govind Swamy by his father Swami goundar could be included in the holding of Govind Swamy's family for the purpose of calculating the ceiling area.2. The relevant facts which are not in dispute are as follows:3. The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of ceiling on land) Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') received the assent of the President on 13th April 1962. It was amended by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of ceiling on land) Act 17 of 1970. According to Section 3(11), the date of commencement of the Act means the 15th day of February 1970. Section 3 (31) defines the 'notified date' as the date specified by the Government in a Notification which shall be a date after the publication of the Act. The relevant notified date in this case is 2.10.1970. Between 15.2.1970 and 2.10.1970 Swami goundar had executed deeds of settlement gi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-17-1998
Reported in : AIR1998SC2120; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)157; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)762; 1997(1)BLJR263; 1998CriLJ2930; 1998(3)SCALE53; (1998)4SCC626; [1998]2SCR870
S.P. Bharucha, J. 1. On 26th July, 1993, a motion of no-confidence was moved in the Lok Sabha against the minority government of P.V. Narasimha Rao. The support of 14 members was needed to have the no-confidence motion defeated. On 28th July, 1993, the no-confidence motion was lost, 251 members having voted in support and 265 against. Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi and Shailender Mahto, members of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (the JMM), and Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadicharan Das, Abhay Pratap Singh and Haji Gulam Mohammed, members of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the Janata Dal, Ajit Singh group (the J.D., A.S.), voted against the no-confidence motion. Ajit Singh, a member of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the J.D., A.S., abstained from voting thereon.2. It is the respondents, case that the above named members agreed to and did receive bribes, to the giving of which P.V. Narasimha Rao, M.P. and Prime Minist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-18-1998
Reported in : 1998IIIAD(SC)308; AIR1998SC1608; [1998]92CompCas373(SC); (1998)3GLR2012; JT1998(2)SC536; 1998(2)SCALE373; (1998)4SCC387; [1998]2SCR339
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. Leave granted.2. All these five appeals arise out of a common judgment dated February 27, 1997 of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in three Special Civil Applications (SCA) Nos. 1568/87, 5149/89 and 5171/91 whereby the High Court set aside the acquisition of land for M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. ('L&T; Ltd.' for short) under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') comprised in SCAs 1568/87 and 5149/89 and dismissed the challenge of L&T; Ltd. in SCA 5171/91 for withdrawal from acquisition by the State Government under Section 48 of the Act. In all these matters, different notifications under Section 4 of the Act were issued as it appeared to the State Government that lands specified in these notifications which were under challenge in these matters were likely to be needed for the purpose of a housing colony of the L&T; Ltd. 'which was engaged in Engineering . Against the order passed in SCA 1568/87 both L&T; Ltd. and the State ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-26-1998
Reported in : AIR1998SC1639; JT1998(2)SC674; 1998(2)SCALE497; (1998)4SCC49; [1998]2SCR470; 1998(1)LC581(SC)
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. Leave granted.2. Ground floor of premises G-47, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi was let out in November, 1963 by Daulat Rai Tandon, father of the present respondent, to the appellant for the residence of its employee, Shri K.K. Chaudhry, who, subsequently, vacated the premises and shifted to his own flat at C-II/29-C, DDA Flats, Janak Puri, Pankha Road, New Delhi and since than, the premises are in occupation of Shri Raj Chaudhry, another employee of the appellant, against whom eviction proceedings, on the ground of sub-letting, are pending.3. The respondent was employed as Deputy Chief Engineer in Northern Railway and retired from service, while posted at Delhi, on 23.7.87. He filed a petition under Section 14C of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act') for eviction of the appellant, but the petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 4.5.93. The Revision filed against that order was dismissed by the High Court. The respondent, then, approached this C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-17-1998
Reported in : 1998IIAD(SC)262; AIR1998SC1592; [1998]231ITR175(SC); JT1998(1)SC700; 1998(1)SCALE624; (1998)3SCC168; [1998]1SCR905
ORDERMrs. Sujata v. Manohar, J.1. The appellant, M/s. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. was, at all material times, a non-resident company having its registered office at Singapore. The appellant-company owned 100% shares in M/s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. which was a company incorporated in India. The present appeals are concerned with assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52.2. An order under Section 23 A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, before its amendment in 1955 was passed by the Income-tax Officer in the case of M/s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. as a result of which the undistributed portion of the assessable income of M/s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. was deemed to have been distributed as dividends among its shareholders for assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52. The dividend deemed to have been so received by the appellant-company as shareholder for the assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52 was sough to be subjected to income-tax by the Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!