Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-31-2004
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - 02-1593 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 BEDROC LIMITED, LLC V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BEDROC LIMITED, LLC, et al. v. UNITED STATES et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 021593. Argued January 20, 2004Decided March 31, 2004 The Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to designate certain nonmineral Nevada lands on which settlers could obtain permits to drill for water. Under 8 of the Pittman Act, each land grant, or patent, reserved to the United States all coal and other valuable minerals in the lands, and the right to remove the same. When one of petitioners predecessors-in-interest began extracting sand and gravel from land patented under the Pittman Act, the Bureau of Land Management ruled that he had trespassed against the Governments reserved interest in the propertys valuable minerals, and the Interior Board of Land Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-17-2004
..... prepaid, 527 u. s., at 641 (observing that senate report on patent and plant variety protection remedy clarification act (patent remedy act) contains no evidence that unremedied patent infringement by states had become a problem of national import ). to the contrary, the ..... restructured or relocated to other parts of the buildings. u. s. civil rights commission, accommodating the spectrum of individual abilities 39 (1983). congress itself heard testimony from persons with disabilities who described the physical inaccessibility of local courthouses. ..... dissent from the judgment of the court. footnote 1 congress had previously attempted such an extension in the voting rights act amendments of 1970, 84 stat. 318, which sought to lower the voting age in state elections from 21 to 18. this extension was rejected ..... with title ii by adopting a variety of less costly measures, including relocating services to alternative, accessible sites and assigning aides to assist persons with disabilities in accessing services. 35.150(b)(1). only if these measures are ..... section 1 of that act, later codified as rev. stat. 1979, 42 u. s. c. 1983, authorized a cause of action against any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any state, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person within the jurisdiction of the united states to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution of the united states. 17 stat. 13. section .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-03-2004
Jones v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. - 02-1205 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 JONES V. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JONES et al. on behalf of herself and a class of others similarly situated v. R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 021205. Argued February 24, 2004Decided May 3, 2004 After this Court held that federal courts should apply the most appropriate state statute of limitations to claims arising under 42 U. S.C. 1981, which contains no statute of limitations, see Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U. S. 656 , 660, Congress enacted a 4-year statute of limitations for causes of action arising under an Act of Congress enacted after [December 1, 1990], 28 U. S.C. 1658(a). Petitioners, African-American former employees of respondent, filed a class action alleging violations of 1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Respondent sought summary judgment, claiming...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-01-2004
Reported in : AIR2004SC5009; JT2004(8)SC272; 2004(3)KLT686(SC); (2005)ILLJ117SC; 2004(8)SCALE475; (2004)8SCC402; (2005)1UPLBEC175
A.K. Mathur, J. 1. In all these appeals common question of law is involved, therefore, they are disposed of by common order.2. The main question involved in these appeals is what is the scope of Apprentices Act, 1961 vis a vis the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Indian Boilers Act, 1923. 3. The Apprentices Act, 1961 was promulgated primarily for the purpose of recruiting the apprentices. The idea behind was strong industrial base across the country. For the industrial growth it was necessary to have trained man power and for that purpose the apprentices were recruited. 4. The Introduction, Objects and Reasons for enacting this Act reads as under :-INTRODUCTION ' After India gained independence, a wave to have its own strong industrial base swept the country. Backed by Government policies, industrial growth had a quantum leap. With the industrial growth a need was felt to have trained man-power and for that steps were taken to arrange for train...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-01-2004
Reported in : AIR2005SC186; [2005]126CompCas356(SC); 2004(5)CTC376; JT2004(9)SC379; 2004(9)SCALE215; (2005)1SCC496
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 11607/2001.2. Section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as incorporated by Andhra Pradesh Act No. 17 of 1986, by amending the Central Act in its application to the State, has been struck down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as ultra vires the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act as also of Article 14 of the Constitution. The District Registrar and Collector, Registration and Stamps Department, Hyderabad and the Assistant Registrar have come up in appeal by special leave.Relevant Statutory Provisions under the Central Act : 3. Section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act (before the insertion of the text under the impugned State Legislation in its applicability to the State of Andhra Pradesh) reads as under:-'73. Every public officer having in his custody any registers, books, records, papers, documents or proceedings, the inspection whereof may tend to secure any duty, or to prove or lead to the discovery of any fraud or omission in relation to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-11-2004
Reported in : (2004)187CTR(SC)513; [2004]266ITR521(SC); JT2004(3)SC295; 2004(3)SCALE214; (2004)12SCC742
S.N. Variava, J. 1. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 2nd July, 2001 passed by the Bombay High Court.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellants are a Export House. They hold a certificate issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. For the Assessment Year 1996-97 the Appellants filed a return of income declaring Nil income. It is an admitted position that the taxable income, before the deductions under Chapter VIA, was Ps. 4.39 crores. However, against this taxable income the Appellants claimed various deductions. One such deduction was under Section 80 HHC for Rs. 3.78 crores. During the assessment proceedings it was found that the Appellants were exporting goods which were self manufactured as well as goods manufactured by supporting manufacturers i.e. trading goods. It was found that the sum of Rs. 3.78 crores, which had been claimed as a deduction, was the profit from exports of self manufactured goods. It was found that from the exports of trading g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-17-2004
Reported in : AIR2004SC2421; 2004(5)ALD84(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)793; 2005(2)ALT4; 2004(4)AWC3560(SC); 2004(3)BLJR1739; [2004]121CompCas99(SC); (2005)4CompLJ503(SC); [2004(2)JCR284(SC)]; 2
Ruma Pal, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The appellant had been sanctioned a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs by the Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'BICICO') in April 1992 for financing the construction of a hotel. According to the appellant, BICICO only disbursed a sum of Rs. 44.56 lakhs in instalments as a result of which the appellant could not complete the project without a huge cost overrun. From time to time upto 2001-2002, the appellant repaid about Rs. 14.23 lakh to BICICO. However, the outstanding amount, due from the appellant according to BICICO as on March 2002, was Rs. 191.3 lakhs including interest. Proceedings were therefore commenced by BICICO under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 for sale of the hotel which had been mortgaged by the appellant to BICICO by way of security against the loan.The hotel was valued on 3rd July 2001 by BICICO through its valuer. According to this valuation, the property was worth Rs. 2.16 cro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-07-2004
Reported in : 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)726; 2004(4)AWC2907(SC); III(2004)BC514; 2004(3)BLJR1780; [2004]121CompCas112(SC); [2004(4)JCR47(SC)]; 2004(5)SCALE693; (2004)7SCC151; [2004]52SCL746(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Leave granted.2. The question in this civil appeal by special leave is whether Bihar State Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BICICO') acted malafide and in breach of section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 by transferring the assets of the debtor company on 19.3.2002 and executing the agreement dated 26.4.2002 with M/s Stichworth Exports Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no.4).3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:In 1982, a company by the name M/s Katihar Flour Mills (P) Ltd. was incorporated to take over the assets and business of a partnership firm M/s Katihar Flour Mills, a business conducted by Jeloka group. The said company was promoted by Gopi Krishna Jeloka (since deceased), Binod Jeloka and Pradeep Jeloka (since deceased). The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, buying and selling of all kinds of grains and wheat products. The flour mill is the main asset of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-01-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD74(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)180; (SCSuppl)2005(1)CHN187; 2004(5)CTC468; 2005(1)CTLJ1(SC); [2005(2)JCR187(SC)]; (2005)2MLJ65(SC); RLW2005(1)SC141; 2004(9)SCALE184; (20
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This civil appeal, by grant of special leave, arises out of judgment and order dated 10.6.1999 of the High Court of Calcutta in FMA No. 37 of 1997 allowing the appeal of the respondent herein and setting aside the order of 2nd Assistant District Judge, Alipore, Calcutta, rescinding the agreement dated 16.8.1980 under section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1963 Act'). 2. Briefly, the facts are as follows. Appellants herein are the Trustees of the Trust Estate of Raja Rajendra Mullick Bahadur owning suit premises bearing nos. 225B and 225C, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta with eight cottages and a main building, more particularly described in the schedule annexed to the lease dated 25.11.1960 executed by the Trustees in favour of Mohd. Ismail for 21 years commencing from 1.5.1960.3. Some of the relevant terms and conditions of the said lease are as follows:'(i) The lessee, i.e. Mohammad Ismail, would pay monthly rent at the rate ment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-05-2004
Reported in : 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)624; 2004(1)ARBLR613(SC); [2004]121CompCas581(SC); (2004)3CompLJ16(SC); 2004(4)CTC479; 110(2004)DLT778(SC); 2004(75)DRJ512; JT2004(4)SC393; (2004)3MLJ87(SC)
S.B. SINHA, J : Interpretation of certain provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short '1940 Act' and '1996 Act' respectively) is in question in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 13.10.1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in O.M.P. No. 94 of 1998 and a judgment dated 17.2.2003 passed by a five-Judge Bench of the said Court in L.P.A. No.492 of 2002 holding that the said appeal was not maintainable. FACTUAL BACKGROUND : The parties hereto entered into an agreement on or about 7.4.1992 in terms whereof the first respondent herein was to manufacture and pack in its factory a wide range of ice cream for and on behalf of the appellant. The said agreement was to remain valid for a period of five years. Admittedly, the said contract contained an arbitration agreement being clause 20 thereof which is as under : "In case of any dispute or any difference arising at any time between the Company ...
Tag this Judgment!