Court : US Supreme Court
Dolman v. United States - 439 U.S. 1395 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Dolman v. United States, 439 U.S. 1395 (1978) Dolman v. United States No. A-534 (78-987) Decided December 21, 1978 439 U.S. 1395 APPLICATION FOR STAY Syllabus Application to stay Court of Appeals' judgment and mandate affirming applicants' criminal contempt convictions for violating District Court's injunction is denied. The Court of Appeals apparently has granted a stay with respect to other individuals who were convicted of criminal contempt for violation of the same injunction; it is uncertain whether applicants have sought a stay from the Court of Appeals pending this Court's disposition of their petition for certiorari; and this Court has granted certiorari in a related case in which applicants' asserted basis for a stay will be reviewed. Accordingly, it is the better exercise of discretion to require applicants to apply to the Court of Appeals for a stay pending this Court's disposition of their petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Marquette Nat. Bank v. First of Omaha Svc. Corp. - 439 U.S. 299 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Marquette Nat. Bank v. First of Omaha Svc. Corp., 439 U.S. 299 (1978) Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. No. 77-1265 Argued October 31, 1978 Decided December 18, 1978 * 439 U.S. 299 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus The First National Bank of Omaha (Omaha Bank) is a national banking association chartered in Nebraska; it is enrolled in the BankAmericard plan, and solicits for that plan in Minnesota. Omaha Bank charges its Minnesota cardholders interest on their unpaid balances at a rate permitted by Nebraska law, but in excess of that permitted by Minnesota law. The Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis (Marquette), a Minnesota-chartered national banking association enrolled in the BankAmericard plan, brought suit in Minnesota against Omaha Bank and its subsidiary, respondent First of Omaha Service Corp., inter alia, to enjoin ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Michigan v. Doran - 439 U.S. 282 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282 (1978) Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282 (1978) No. 77-1202 Argued October 4, 1978 Decided December 18, 1978 439 U.S. 282 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN Syllabus After respondent had been arrested in Michigan and charged with receiving and concealing stolen property (a truck driven from Arizona) and Michigan had notified Arizona authorities, Arizona charged respondent with theft, and an Arizona Justice of the Peace issued an arrest warrant reciting, in accordance with Arizona law, that there was "reasonable cause" to believe that respondent had committed the offense. Thereafter, the Governor of Arizona issued a requisition for respondent's extradition accompanied by the arrest warrant, supporting affidavits, and the original complaint; the Governor of Michigan issued an arrest warrant and ordered extradition. Upon being arraigned on the Michigan warrant, respondent petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC586; 1979LabIC294; (1979)1SCC461; [1979]2SCR870; 1979(11)LC143(SC)
P.N. Shinghal J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dated November 1, 1971, in writ petition No. 124 of 1969. That petition was filed against the promotions of respondents Nos. 1 to 46 and others as Professors in supersession of the claims of the writ petitioners who contended that they were senior and more qualified for promotion. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the State Government's Order No. 643-HTE dated July 25, 1969, in regard to the appointments of respondents Nos. 3 to 46 and directed that it would be open to the State Government to make a fresh selection of Professors in accordance with the law. A review petition was filed against the judgment but was dismissed on September 14, 1972. The State Government is aggrieved and has filed the present appeal.2. When the case was taken up for hearing on November 28, 1978. it was brought to our notice by counsel for the respondents that it will not be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC592; (1979)ILLJ146SC; (1979)1SCC596; [1979]2SCR826
A.P. Sen J.1. These two appeals by special leave, directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated May 12, 1969 raise common questions and therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment.2. By separate notifications issued under Section 3 of the U.P. Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, the State Government constituted Municipal Corporations in five cities in the State, namely Kanpur, Agra, Varanasi, Allahabad and Lucknow w.e.f. February 1, 1960.3. The appellant in the present appeal, Mohd. Rashid Ahmad was a permanent Assistant Engineer in the Development Board, Kanpur,. constituted under the Cawnpore Urban Area Development Act, 1945. In 1953, an Administrator was appointed of both the Development Board and the Municipal Board, Kanpur, constituted under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, under the U.P. Local Bodies (Appointment of Administrators) Act, 1953. The two local bodies, however, continued to have separate legal existence and their officers and servants continued as t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC861; (1979)4SCC790; 1979(11)LC251(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The plaintiffs-respondents 1 to 3 instituted a suit in the Court of District Judge, Jhansi, under Section 92 of the CPC, against Avadh Kishore Dass, defendant-appellant herein, inter alia, on the ground that there was a public religious endowment of considerable area of land in Village Baha-walpura, District Jalaun (U.P.) in favour of the Temple of Shri Thakur Ram Jankiji Maharaj also known as Shri Thakurji Maharaj.2. The founder of the endowment or trust was one Swami Sewa Das, who was a hermit of a very high Order be longing to Rihang Vaishnava Sampraday. He had a large number of followers. His hermitage was in village Bahawalpura, Pargana Konch. District Jalaun. Sometime in the 14th century King Mohamad Shah was passing by that way. He was impressed by the learning of Swami Sewa Das as well as his austerity and personality. The King made a gift of 836 bighas of land as padaragh in the aforesaid village in favour of Swami Sewa Das, in trust for the specific purpos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC879; (1979)3SCC782; 1979(11)LC188(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. The appellant's petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the annulment of his marriage with the respondent on the ground that at the date of the marriage (October 8, 1962) the respondent was already pregnant by some other man, of which he was ignorant then, was decreed by the trial Court on August 26, 1963 but on appeal the decree was reversed and his petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on February 20, 1968; a Letters Patent appeal by the appellant was summarily dismissed by the Division Bench of that Court on August 23, 1968. Hence this appeal by special leave.2. Few admitted facts in the case may be stated: The appellant was married to the respondent on October 8, 1962 at Patiala. After the marriage he co-habited with the respondent on few occasions but on October 30, 1962 he came to know that the respondent was already pregnant. After that revelation he had no co-habitation with her but imm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1979LabIC296; (1979)2SCC339; [1979]2SCR853
D.A. Desai, J.1. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Civil Appeal No. 357/77 filed writ petition No. 5462/74 challenging the selection by U.P. Public Service Commission ('Commission' for short) and subsequent appointment by U.P. State Government of appellant and respondent No. 6 to the post of Professor in Medicine in State Government Medical Colleges. A learned single Judge of the High Court quashed the selections. Four appeals came to Toe preferred against the judgment quashing selections. Special Appeal No. 232/75 was filed by Dr. R.N. Tandon, respondent No. 6; Special Appeal No. 233 of 1975 was preferred by the present appellant Dr. M.C. Gupta; Special Appeal No. 264 of 1975 was preferred by the State of U.P.; and Special Appeal No. 256 of 1975 was filed by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Civil Appeal No. 357/77 against that part of the judgment of the learned single Judge by which appointment of appellant Dr. M.C. Gupta and respondent No. 6, Dr. R.N. Tandon, was not auashed.2. The appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC616; (1979)1SCC524; [1979]2SCR778; 1979(11)LC191(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court on December 5, 1967 in Special Appeal No. 1068 of 1967 and raises a short question whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of certain concessions (deductions) in the minimum price notified by the Cane Commissioner in his order issued on June 1, 1955 ?2. The appellant (Shri Janki Sugar Mills & Company) is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing sugar. By an order passed on November 1, 1954 under Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1953, the Cane Commissioner reserved certain sugarcane centers for the appellant's sugar factory. On November 12, 1954 (i.e. within 14 days of the reservation of the sugarcane centers) the respondent No. 4 (Laskar Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd.) made an offer for the 1954-55 crushing season for the supply of 6 lac maunds of sugarcane out of a total estimate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC602; 1979CriLJ589; (1979)2SCC593; [1979]2SCR816
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. These appeals are by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1967 and Order dated 11th January, 1974 in Cr. Misc. (S.C.A.) No. 80 of 1973.2. The appellant was chargesheeted on 26th December, 1963 for an offence under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, for entering into a criminal conspiracy with one Sirajuddin and one Rehman to accept from them illegal gratification in the discharge of his official duties. He was also charged with specific offences of accepting Rs. 6000 and Rs. 4000 from Sirajuddin and Rehman being offences punishable under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 5(2) and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, he, during the period from 1955 to 1961 habitually accepted illegal gratification from the ...
Tag this Judgment!