Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co. - 364 U.S. 520 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520 (1960) United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co. No. 26 Argued October 19, 1960 Decided January 9, 1961 364 U.S. 520 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus Respondent sued the United States in the Court of Claims to recover costs and damages incurred under a government-terminated contract to construct and operate a power plant to provide electric power for the Atomic Energy Commission. The Government contended that the contract was unenforceable because it grew out of a proposal resulting from negotiations in which the Government had been represented by an unpaid part-time consultant to the Budget Bureau, who was at the same time an active officer of an investment banking company which was expected to profit from the transaction by becoming financial agent for the project. It was shown that, while acting for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago - 365 U.S. 43 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, 365 U.S. 43 (1961) Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago No. 34 Argued October 19-20, 1960 Decided January 23, 1961 365 U.S. 43 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Municipal Code of Chicago, 155-4, requires submission of all motion pictures for examination or censorship prior to their public exhibition and forbids their exhibition unless they meet certain standards. Petitioner applied for a permit to exhibit a certain motion picture and tendered the required license fee, but the permit was denied solely because petitioner refused to submit the film for examination. Petitioner sued in a Federal District Court for injunctive relief ordering issuance of the permit without submission of the film and restraining the city officials from interfering with its exhibition. It did not submit the film to the court or offer any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1961)63BOMLR628
Abhyankar, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the applicant Yeshwanta Mahadeo Dhirde under the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 20-A of the C.P. & Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, against the decision of Mr. B. V. Patwardhan, Assistant Judge, Nagpur, by which the Assistant Judge dismissed the election petition filed by the petitioner Yeshwanta by his judgment dated August 3, 1960- By the original petition the applicant Yeshwanta challenged the election of the present opponent Nandkishore Ghanashyamlal Jaiswal who was elected as a member from Ward No. 10, called Vithal Mandir Ward, of Katol Municipal Committee. Nominations for elections as Ward Members from several wards were to be filed on May 25, 1959. The nomination papers were scrutinised on May 27, 1959. At the time of scrutiny of nomination paper of opponent Nandkishore, applicant Yeshwanta had raised an objection to the nomination paper of Nandkishore being accepted on the ground that Nandkishore was a Patel of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Michigan Nat'l Bank v. Michigan - 365 U.S. 467 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Michigan Nat'l Bank v. Michigan, 365 U.S. 467 (1961) Michigan National Bank v. Michigan No. 155 Argued January 18-19, 1961 Decided March 6, 1961 365 U.S. 467 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN Syllabus R.S. 5219 permits States to tax the shares of national banks, but not "at a greater rate than . . . other moneyed capital . . . coming into competition with the business of national banks." Michigan taxes the shareholders of national banks at a higher rate on the value of their shares of stock than it taxes the shareholders of federal and state savings and loan associations on the paid-in value of their shares. Both classes of institutions make residential mortgage loans, but national banks accept deposits which are employed in making loans and which amount to many times the aggregate value of their shares of stock, whereas savings and loan associations accept no deposits and make their loans main...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1962)1MLJ51
Srinivasan, J.1. In W.P. Nos. 343, 391 to 396 and 418 of 1960, the ex-Zamindar of Ramnad is the petitioner. He prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the First Additional Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, and to quash the orders of assessment made by that officer for the assessment years 1951-52 to 1955-56, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 in respect of certain receipts of the petitioner by way of interim payments provided for in the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Act XXVI of 1948). W.P. No. 849 of 1960 is directed against the notice of demand issued under Section 29 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to pay advance tax under Section 18A(1) of the Act for the assessment year 1960-61.2. In the remaining writ petitions - W.P. Nos. 419 to 424, 1236 and 1237 of 1960, the ex-Zamindar of Sivaganga is the petitioner. He prays for writs of prohibition as the assessments in those cases have not yet proceeded beyond the stage of the issu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1962]44ITR853(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - In W.P. Nos. 343, 391 to 396 and 418 of 1960, the ex-zamindar of Ramnad is the petitioner. He prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the First Additional Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, and to quash the orders of assessment made by that officer for the assessment years 1951-52 to 1955-56, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 in respect of certain receipts of the petitioner by way of interim payments provided for in the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948). W.P. No. 849 of 1960 is directed against a notice of demand issued under section 29 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to pay advance tax under section 18A(1) of the Act for the assessment year 1960-61.In the remaining writ petitions - W.P. Nos. 419 to 424 and 1236, 1237 of 1960 - the ex-zamindar of Sivaganga is the petitioner. He prays for writs of prohibition as the assessments in those cases have not yet proceeded beyond the stage of the issue of noti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Konigsberg v. State Bar of California - 366 U.S. 36 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (1961) Konigsberg v. State Bar of California No. 28 Argued December 14, 1960 Decided April 24, 1961 366 U.S. 36 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Under California law, the State Supreme Court may admit to the practice of law any applicant whose qualifications have been certified to it by the California Committee of Bar Examiners. In hearings by that Committee on his application for admission to the Bar, petitioner refused to answer any questions pertaining to his membership in the Communist Party, not on the ground of possible self-incrimination, but on the ground that such inquiries were beyond the purview of the Committee's authority and infringed rights of free thought, association and expression assured him under the State and Federal Constitutions. The Committee declined to certify him as qualified for admission to the Bar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]1SCR778; [1963]Supp2SCR778
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. The petitioner is a partner in a firm called Messrs. Mohan Lal Hargovind Das, which carries on business in the manufacture and sale of biris in number of States, and is dealer registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act 15 of 1948 with its head office at Allahabad. In the present petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner impugns the validity of a levy of sales tax made by the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad, by his order dated December 20, 1958. 2. On December 14, 1957, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under section 4(1)(b) of the Act exempting from tax, sales of certain goods including biris, provided that the additional Central Excise duties leviable thereon had been paid. In partial modification of this notification, the Government issued another notification on November 25, 1958, exempting from tax unconditionally sales of biris, both machinemade and handmade, with effect from July 1, 1958. The effect of the two notif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
James v. United States - 366 U.S. 213 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961) James v. United States No. 63 Argued November 17, 1960 Decided May 15, 1961 366 U.S. 213 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Embezzled money is taxable income of the embezzler in the year of the embezzlement under 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, which defines "gross income" as including "gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever," and under 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which defines "gross income" as "all income from whatever source derived." Commissioner v. Wilcox, 327 U. S. 404 , overruled. Pp. 366 U. S. 213 -222. 2. After this Court's decision in Commissioner v. Wilcox, supra, petitioner embezzled large sums of money during the years 1951 through 1954. He failed to report those amounts as gross income in his income tax returns for those years, and he was convict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McGowan v. Maryland - 366 U.S. 420 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) McGowan v. Maryland No. 8 Argued December 8, 1960 Decided May 29, 1961 366 U.S. 420 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Syllabus Appellants, employees of a large department store on a highway in Anne Arundel County, Md., were convicted and fined in a Maryland State Court for selling on Sunday a loose-leaf binder, a can of floor wax, a stapler, staples and a toy, in violation of Md.Ann.Code, Art. 27, 521, which generally prohibits the sale on Sunday of all merchandise except the retail sale of tobacco products, confectioneries, milk, bread, fruit, gasoline, oils, greases, drugs, medicines, newspapers and periodicals. Recent amendments now except from the prohibition the retail sale in Anne Arundel County of all foodstuffs, automobile and boating accessories, flowers, toilet goods, hospital supplies and souvenirs, and exempt entirely any retail establishment in that ...
Tag this Judgment!