Court : US Supreme Court
Richardson v. Ramirez - 418 U.S. 24 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) Richardson v. Ramirez No. 72-1589 Argued January 15, 1974 Decided June 24, 1974 418 U.S. 24 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus After the three individual respondents, who had been convicted of felonies and had completed their sentences and paroles, were refused registration to vote in three different California counties respectively because of their felony convictions, they brought a class petition, on behalf of themselves and all other ex-felons similarly situated, for a writ of mandate in the California Supreme Court, naming as defendants the Secretary of State and the three county election officials who had denied them registration "individually and as representatives of the class of all other" county election officials in the State, and challenging the constitutionality of respondents' disenfranchisement on the ground, inter alia, that provisions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori139
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. Shorn of irrelevant details the cases of the plaintiff and defendant may be stated in short. The plaintiff's case is as follows:--One Swarn Bag died in or about 1927 leaving behind his widow Jamuna Bewa and daughter Sabitri. Ukia (plaintiff) is the daughter of Sabitri and Balabhadra. Jamuna died on 19-8-1955. The disputed land with an area of 3.60 acres in khata No. 195 of village Jamankira (in the ex-State of Bamra), now in the district of Sambalpur stood recorded as Nariha Jagir lands in the name of Swarna Bag. The same was recorded in the name of Jamuna Bewa after the death of Swarna Bag. On Jamuna's death defendant was requested by the plaintiff to look after the lands. Defendant belied the trust and stealthily Sot his name mutated in the Revenue Mutation Case No. 166/32 of 1955-56 falsely alleging that he was the adopted son of both Swarna Bag (Sabitri?) and Balabhadra though, in fact, there was no adoption. Amongst other reliefs, plaintiff asked for declaration...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2299; 1975(Supp)SCC1; [1976]2SCR347
A.N. Ray, J.1. In Civil Appeal No. 887 of 1975 the appellant is Indira Nehru Gandhi and the respondent is Raj Narain. Civil Appeal No. 909 of 1975 is the cross objection of the respondent. On 14 July, 1975 it was directed that both the appeals would be heard together. The appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated 12 June, 1975. The High Court held that the appellant held herself out as a candidate from 29 December, 1970 and was guilty of having committed corrupt practice by having obtained the assistance of Gazetted Officers in furtherance of her election prospects. The High Court further found the appellant guilty of corrupt practice committed under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act by having obtained the assistance of Yashpal Kapur a Gazetted Officer for the furtherance of her election prospects. The High Court held the appellant to be disqualified for a period of six years from the date o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976AP295
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the defendants by leave granted by Madhava Reddy, J., while dismissing S.A. No. 668 of 1972 arising form O.S. No. 74 of 1960 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Rajam.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that they are the owners of the suit lands situated in Venkatarayuni Agraharam and that the defendants are their tenants. The said Agraharam is a pre-settlement minor inam and that when the Rent Reduction Act was enforced by the State, the defendants stopped paying the rent whereupon the plaintiffs filed suit O.S. No. 616/1953 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Rajam for a declaration that the said Act is not applicable and that the said suit was decreed. The defendants were therefore estopped from contending that the lands are situate within a whole inam village and that therefore it is an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (d)of the Madras Estates Act and that since they were not parties to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976AP375
Sambasiva Rao, J.1. I agree with the conclusion drawn by my brothers Kuppuswami and Lakshmaiah, JJ., in their separate judgments, namely that the petition be dismissed.2. The meaning and scope of Section 124-A, I.P.C. are well known and well established. After the two opinions of my learned brothers, it is unnecessary for me to elaborate the legal position. A mere criticism or denunciation of the Government established by law is not objectionable. Citizens are certainly entitled to express their grievances and to endeavour to get them redressed through lawful means. However, if these attempts or exhortations bring the established Government or tend to bring it into hatred and contempt, they certainly come within the ambit of sedition as stated in Sec. 124-A, I.P.C. The test that should be applied is to find out whether any article or articles intend to have the effect of creating feelings of hostility towards Government and to excite disaffection. I am not referring to the case law on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi224
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) The petitioner, Avtar Singh, is anInspector in the Delhi Police. His case, in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, when extricated from the massof confused details and irrelevancies which clutter the record, fallsunder four main heads. First, there is a question as to the date onwhich he ought to have been confirmed as Sub-Inspector, and theseniority to which he would thereby be entitled. The second questionis whether he was entitled to be considered for promotion to therank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1967. Thirdly, whetherthere were any circumstances existing which vitiated the consideration which he received for promotion to that rank in 1970 and 1972.And, fourthly, whether certain adverse remarks made in his annualconfidential report for the period 1969-70 ought to be expunged.I will deal with each of these questions in that order.Confirmation and Seniority(2) The petitioner started his career with the Delhi Police as a Const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ. - 431 U.S. 209 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) Abood v. Detroit Board of Education No. 75-1153 Argued November 9, 1976 Decided May 23, 1977 431 U.S. 209 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN Syllabus A Michigan statute authorizing union representation of local governmental employees permits an "agency shop" arrangement, whereby every employee represented by a union, even though not a union member, must pay to the union, as a condition of employment, a service charge equal in amount to union dues. Appellant teachers filed actions (later consolidated) in Michigan state court against appellee Detroit Board of Education and appellee Union (which represented teachers employed by the Board) and Union officials, challenging the validity of the agency shop clause in a collective bargaining agreement between the Board and the Union. The complaints alleged that appellants were unwilling or had refused to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 16(1979)DLT203
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises an interesting question, if the petitioners, who were initially working in the Posts and Telegraphs Wing of the Central Public Works Department, and whose services were eventually transferred to the newly constituted Civil Engineering Wing of the P & T Department, had been absorbed in the Pat Department and, if so, whether they could nevertheless bs repatriated to the Central Public Works Department, and in a controversy that has arisen because of an apparent conflict of interest between these offcers and the direct entrants to the Civil Engineering Wing.(2) Prior to July 1, 1963, the work of designing and construction of buildings required by the Posts and Telegraphs Department used to bo looked after by the Central Public Works Department in its Posts and Telegraphs Wing. The petitioners were then working in the said Wing. By a Notification of May 4,19 3, it was declared that the P & T Department wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1982P& H439
Prem Chand Jain, J.1. Shri Hardwari Lal has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Calling in question the legality and constitutional validity of Haryana Ordinance No. 5 of 1980 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) and the Maharshi Dayanand University (Amendment) Act, 1980 (Haryana Act No. 40 of 1980) (hereinafter called the Amendment Act) and has also prayed for issuance of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to renew his term as Vice-Chancellor of the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereinafter called the University).2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is generally appropriate to give details of the allegation made in the petition, but so far as the present petition is concerned, I find that it may not be possible to do so at this stage and it would suffice if a few facts are mentioned as a preface, which are to the following effect :--3. Shri Hardwari Lal, petitioner, was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University on Oct., 1977. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1984Ker142
Bhaskakan Nambiar, J.1. Defen-dants 3 to 5, the legal representatives of the first defendant are the appellants.2. When the plaintiff was a minor, his grandmother and mother acting as guardian entrusted the plaint property, about 54 cents of land, to one Chockalingam Pillai for the construction of a Cinema Theatre on 19-11-1947 (Ext. B1). The eights of Chocka-lingam Pillai became vested in the 1st defendant and now have devolved on defendants 3 to 5 after his death. The plaintiff contends that the transaction is not a lease, but only a licence. He therefore filed the suit for a direction that he be permitted to deposit Rs. 51,309/-, the value of the theatre payable to the 1st defendant and then allow him to be in exclusive possession of the property and for other reliefs.3. The first defendant resisted the claim coniending that the transaction was a lease of land for a commercial purpose, the lessee constructed a Cinema Theatre, for such commercial purpose and therefore is entitled to ...
Tag this Judgment!