Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: coercion indian contract act Court: us supreme court Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 9 results (0.066 seconds)

Dec 17 2002 (SC)

Ex-capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-17-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)1169; 2003(1)AWC753(SC); JT2002(10)SC310; (2003)2SCC45; [2002]SUPP5SCR186; 2003(1)LC137(SC)

..... or any other body of lawyers. if he so abstains, he commits a professional misconduct, a breach of professional duty, a breach of contract and also a breach of trust and he will be liable tosuffer all the consequence thereof. there is no fundamental right, either under article ..... courts and litigants should not be targeted in respect of actions for which they are in no way responsible. he agreed that no force or coercion should be employed against lawyers who are not in agreement with the 'strike call' and want to discharge their professional duties. the learned ..... should be issued to the lawyers to call off a strike. the delhi high court noted certain observations of this court which are worth reproducing:'in indian council of legal aid and advice v. bar council of india : [1995]1scr304 , the supreme court observed thus : 'it is generally believed ..... to the extent indicated in theresolution.46. further appropriate rules are required to be framed by thehigh courts under section 34 of the advocates act by making itclear that strike by advocate/advocates would be consideredinterference with administration of justice and concernedadvocate/advocates may be barred from practising before ..... power vested in a publicauthority is coupled with a duty to exercise it, when a situation callsfor such exercise. the authority cannot refuse to act at its will orpleasure. it must be remembered that if such omission continues,particularly when there is an apparent threat to the administration ofjustice and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2002 (SC)

Ex. CaptaIn Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-17-2002

Reported in : (2003)1MLJ106(SC); (2003)1UPLBEC649

..... association or any other body of lawyers. if he so abstains, he commits a professional misconduct, a breach of professional duty, a breach of contract and also a breach of trust and he will be liable to suffer all the consequences thereof. there is no fundamental right, either under article ..... courts and litigants should not be targeted in respect of actions for which they are in no way responsible. he agreed that no force or coercion should be employed against lawyers who are not in agreement with the 'strike call' and want to discharge their professional duties. the learned attorney ..... should be issued to the lawyers to call off a strike. the delhi high court noted certain observations of this court which are worth reproducing :'in indian council of legal aid and advice v. bar council of india, : [1995]1scr304 , the supreme court observed thus :'it is generally believed ..... extent indicated in the resolution.46. further, appropriate rules are required to be framed by the high courts under section 34 of the advocates act by making it clear that strike by advocate/advocates would be considered interference with administration of justice and concerned advocate/advocates, may be barred ..... 'reference' from the court, fails to take action against the advocate concerned, this court might consider invoking its owners under section 38 of the act by sending for the record of the proceedings from the bar council and passing appropriate orders. of course, the appellate powers under section 38 would .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2002 (SC)

Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-17-2002

..... bar association or any other body of lawyers. if he so abstains, he commits a professional misconduct, a breach of professional duty, a breach of contract and also a breach of trust and he will be liable to suffer all the consequences thereof. there is no fundamental right, either under article ..... brutalities courts and litigants should not be targeted in respect of actions for which they are in no way responsible. he agreed that no force or coercion should be employed against lawyers who are not in agreement with the "strike call" and want to discharge their professional duties. the learned attorney ..... should be issued to the lawyers to call off a strike. the delhi high court noted certain observations of this court which are worth reproducing:"in indian council of legal aid and advice v. bar council of india reported in (1995) 1 scc 732 : (air 1995 sc 691), the supreme court ..... "reference" from the court, fails to take action against the advocate concerned, this court might consider invoking its powers under section 38 of the act by sending for the record of the proceedings from the bar council and passing appropriate orders. of course, the appellate powers under section 38 would be ..... and take appropriate action against such an advocate. under article 144 of the constitution "all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of india shall act in aid of the supreme court". the bar council which performs a public duty and is charged with the obligation to protect the dignity of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 2002 (SC)

Savitri Sahay Vs. Sachidanand Prasad

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-31-2002

Reported in : AIR2003SC156; 2003(51)BLJR356; JT2002(8)SC601; (2002)8SCC765; 2002(2)LC1531(SC)

..... relevantprovisions of the bihar buildings (lease, rent and eviction) act, 1982(hereinafter referred to as the said act). section 11(1)(c), 14(8)and 17 of the said act read as follows:11. eviction of tenants.- (1) notwithstanding anythingcontained in any contract or law to the contrary butsubject to the provisions of ..... the industrial disputes act,1947 (act xiv of 1947), and to those of section 18, wherea tenant is in ..... reported in : [1988]2scr1058 : [1988]2scr1058 , wherein it has beenheld, in the context of section 25b(8) of the delhi rent control act,1958, that even though the powers were somewhat wider than similarpowers under section 115, yet the high court was not entitled to enterinto merits of factual ..... sarla ahuja v. unitedindian insurance company ltd. reported in : air1999sc100 , whereinagain, in the context of section 25b(8) of the delhi rent control act,1958, it has been held that even though the word 'revision' is notused the powers of the court under this section are revisional innature and a ..... submission. in case theappellant does not shift into the said premises, it will be open to therespondent to apply, under section 17 of the said act, for restorationof possession and for compensation.11. in this view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside theimpugned judgment and restore the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 2002 (SC)

Onkar Lal Bajaj Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Etc. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-20-2002

Reported in : AIR2003SC2562; 2003(3)ALLMR(SC)783; (2003)2SCC673; [2002]SUPP5SCR605

..... was not permissible and was ill-founded.25. the petitions, it is contended are nothing but a disguise suits under the specific relief act despite the fact that contract would not be enforceable even under the said act. thus, it is contended that the petitioner have no legal right that can be enforced under article 226 of the constitution of india ..... of the experts the results speak for themselves. at the other centers the average of successful candidates was 50%. at this center the examinations had the following percentage.1. mother indian language .. 94% 2. english .. 70% 3. social studies .. 95% 4. everyday science .. 90% 5. elementary mathematics .. 100% 6. economics and civics .. 92% 7. elementary physiology & hygiene .. 96% 8. ..... the impugned order and learned solicitor general in defence thereof.18. the entire matter triggered of as a result of media exposure. as already noticed, the front page of indian express carried the lead story on 2nd august, 2002 attributing political patronage in grant of allotments on political considerations. the newspaper for 2nd august published a list of 61 ..... 2248 cases. these are operational outlets. the remaining loi holders were in process of completing requisite formalities when the impugned order was issued.10. on 2nd august, 2002, indian express carried, on its front page a story with certain name attributing political patronage in grant of dealership/distributorship. the newspapers also carried editorials. the insinuations made were that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 2002 (FN)

Atkins Vs. Virginia

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-20-2002

..... or should not receive the death penalty?"), and, as such, would not elicit whether the respondent might agree or disagree that all mentally retarded people by definition can never act with the level of culpability associated with the death penalty, regardless of the severity of their impairment or the individual circumstances of their crime. second, none of the ..... our precedents and, in my view, is antithetical to considerations of federalism, which instruct that any "permanent prohibition upon all units of democratic government must [be apparent] in the operative acts (laws and the application of laws) that the people have approved." stanford v. ken tucky, 492 u. s. 361 , 377 (1989) (plurality opinion). the court's uncritical ..... . 2d, at 323-324. in their opinion, "it is indefensible to conclude that individuals who are mentally retarded are not to some degree less culpable for their criminal acts. by definition, such individuals have substantial limitations not shared by the general population. a moral and civilized society diminishes itself if its system of justice does not afford recognition and ..... responsibility should be tried and punished when they commit crimes. because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct. moreover, their impairments can jeopardize the *briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 2002 (FN)

Federal Maritime Comm'n Vs. South Carolina Ports Authority

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-28-2002

..... in federal district court.15 to conclude that this choice does 15while justice breyer argues that states' access to "full judicial review" of the commission's orders mitigates any coercion to participate in fmc adjudicative proceedings, post, at 784, he earlier concedes that a state must appear before the commission in order "to obtain full judicial review of an ..... from private suits in state courts pursuant to federal causes of action); blatchford v. native village of noatak, 501 u. s. 775 (1991) (applying state sovereign immunity to suits by indian tribes); principality of monaco v. mississippi, 292 u. s. 313 (1934) (applying state sovereign immunity to suits by foreign nations); ex parte new york, 256 u. s. 490 (1921 ..... in judgment). the case before us presents a fairly typical example of a federal administrative agency's use of agency adjudication. congress has enacted a statute, the shipping act of 1984 (act or shipping act), 46 u. s. c. app. 1701 et seq. (1994 ed. and supp. v), which, among other things, forbids marine terminal operators to discriminate against terminal users. ..... law, or discretion presented on the record." ibid. (citations omitted). this court therefore concluded in butz that alj s were "entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability for their judicial acts." id., at 514. turning to fmc adjudications specifically, neither the commission nor the united states disputes the court of appeals' characterization below that such a proceeding "walks, talks, and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 2002 (FN)

Columbus Vs. Ours Garage and Wrecker Service, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-20-2002

..... quality standard[s]"). even so, states may delegate implementation authority under the clean air act to their political subdivisions, subject to the requirement that the state bear ultimate oversight responsibility. see 7410(a)(2)(e)(iii) (state must provide "necessary assurances that, where the state ..... upon criteria she "deems necessary or appropriate for the attainment ... of [national] ambient air quality standards"); cf. 33 u. s. c. 1313(d)(1)(a) (under the clean water act, each state must develop pollution abatement plans based upon a "priority ranking" of all "waters within its boundaries for which ... effluent limitations ... are not stringent enough to implement [applicable] water ..... could be added, see, e. g., 33 u. s. c. 1313(d), 1362(3) (clean water act). but in any event, a siphoning off of the states' "historic powers" to delegate has equally been achieved, whether it has come about through the coercion of deprivation of spending clause funds or through other means. the point is that it is not unusual ..... for congress to interfere in this matter. 3 the court thinks the clean air act is a bad example merely because a state can rely on political subdivisions to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2002 (FN)

Hope Vs. Pelzer

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-27-2002

..... the prison, officials had decided to deny [ort] water as punishment for his refusal to work." id., at 326. so too would a violation have occurred if the method of coercion reached a point of severity such that the recalcitrant prisoner's health was at risk. ibid. although the facts of the case are not identical, ort's premise is that ..... respondents' conduct are separated from his other grievances and the mistreatment invented by the court, this case presents one simple question: was it clearly established in 1995 that the mere act of cuffing petitioner to the restraining bar (or, in the case of officer mcclaran, ordering petitioner's attachment to the restraining bar) violated the eighth amendment? the answer to this ..... decision forecloses any defense other than qualified immunity on the ground relied upon by the court of appeals. second, we may address the immunity question on the assumption that the act of field discipline charged on each occasion was handcuffing hope to a hitching post for an extended period apparently to inflict gratuitous pain or discomfort, with no justification in threatened ..... the officers, we did not take any question about the sufficiency of pleadings and affidavits to raise a genuine possibility that the three named officers were responsible for the punitive acts of shackling alleged. all questions raised by petitioner (the plaintiff against whom summary judgment was entered) go to the application of the standard that no immunity is available for official .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //