Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: supreme court of india Year: 1987 Page 8 of about 82 results (0.177 seconds)

Aug 04 1987 (SC)

inder Mohan Lal Vs. Ramesh Khanna

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-04-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC1986; JT1987(3)SC246; 1987(2)SCALE196; (1987)4SCC1; [1987]3SCR765; 1987(2)LC705(SC)

..... the rent act controls the eviction of tenants and gives protection to the tenants against eviction. it stipulates that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant unless certain .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1987 (FN)

West Virginia Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-13-1987

..... federal rule that private parties owing debts to the federal government must pay prejudgment interest where the underlying claim is a contractual obligation to pay money, royal indemnity co. v. united states, 313 u. s. 289 , a federal court should consider the interests of the two governments involved. board of comm'rs ..... of general local government." 31 u.s.c. 3701(c). as stated in 3717(g)(2), this statute does not apply to claims arising under contracts entered into before october 25, 1982, and therefore has no force here. we can draw no inference about congress' comprehension of the federal common law ..... , ch. 131, 14 (1868) (same). moreover, in 1981, w.va.code 56-6-31 was amended to provide for prejudgment interest in cases other than contract actions, except where otherwise provided by law, where a judgment provided for special damages as defined in the statute, or liquidated damages. w.va.code 56-6-31 ..... foods, inc., 440 u. s. 715 , 440 u. s. 729 (1979) (footnote omitted), since state law would not of its own force govern contracts between a state and the federal government. given that state law may neither govern of its own force nor be adopted as the federal rule of decision, it ..... (1985). it held that the question was governed by federal law, under which prejudgment interest was allowable as a matter of right in a breach-of-contract action where the amount due was liquidated, ascertained, or agreed to. id. at 1030-1031. the court of appeals rejected the district court's conclusion .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 1987 (FN)

Asahi Metal Indus. Vs. Superior Court

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-24-1987

..... ., ltd. (asahi), the manufacturer of the tube's valve assembly. zurcher's claims against cheng shin and the other defendants were eventually settled and dismissed, leaving only cheng shin's indemnity action against asahi. california's long-arm statute authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction "on any basis not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or of the united states." cal ..... asahi "has never contemplated that its limited sales of tire valves to cheng shin in taiwan would subject it to lawsuits in california." ibid. the record does not include any contract between cheng shin and asahi. tr. of oral arg. 24. primarily on the basis of the above information, the superior court denied the motion to quash summons, stating: "asahi obviously ..... than in taiwan or japan, while california's interests are diminished by cheng shin's lack of a california residence and by the fact that the dispute is primarily about indemnity, rather than the safety of consumers. while the possibility of being sued in california might create an additional deterrent to petitioner's manufacture of unsafe assemblies, the same effect would .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1987 (SC)

Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-13-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC735; 1987CriLJ703; JT1987(1)SC157; 1987(1)SCALE58; (1987)1SCC476; [1987]1SCR991; 1987(1)LC351(SC)

m.p. thakkar, j.1. can a sanction to prosecute surrogate for a sanction to take cognizance? 2. two safeguards are provided in regard to prosecution of members of the armed forces or of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order sought to be prosecuted for use of excessive force in the discharge of purported discharge of their duty: (1) they cannot be 'prosecuted' without obtaining a sanction to prosecute from the appropriate government (section 132 (132. protection against prosecution for acts done under preceding sections-(1) no prosecution against any person for any act purporting to be done under section 129, section 139 or section 131 shall be instituted in any criminal court except-(a) with the sanction of the central government where such person is an officer or member of the armed forces; (b) with the sanction of the state government in any other case..) of the crpc) (cr. pc) (2) no court can take 'cognizance' of an offence against such an official in the absence of the previous sanction of the appropriate government (see section 197 of cr. pc) (197. prosecution of judges and public servants-(1) x x xx 2. no court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the armed forces of the union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the central government. 3. the state government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub- section (2) shall .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1987 (SC)

Smt. Dhan Mal Devi JaIn Vs. Gordhan Dass and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-03-1987

Reported in : JT1987(1)SC623; 1987Supp(1)SCC632

ordera.p. sen, j.1. the decision of the constitution bench in smt.gian devi anand v. jeevan kumar and ors. : [1985]3scr1 has now settled the conflict between the decision of this court in damadilal and ors. v. parashram and ors. (1976) supp.scr 645 taking a view upon the construction of the definition of the term 'tenant' under section 2(1) of the madhya pradesh accommodation control act, 1961 as including a statutory tenant and also holding that the right is a heritable one, and the view to the contrary expressed in ganpat ladha v. sashikant vishnu shinde : [1978]3scr198 upon a construction of the word 'tenant' as defined in section 5(11)(c) of the bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rates control act, 1947 regarding the nature of statutory tenants and its heritability. the court has held in smt.gian devi anand's case at p.37 of the report expressly overruled the view taken in ganpat ladha's case.2. in the present case, the high court has rightly held that on the death of the statutory tenant ghotam mal having occurred on december 9, 1972 i.e. prior to the date when the haryana urban (control of rent & eviction) act, 1973 came into operation, the rights were governed by the provisions of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949. it is to be noticed that the definition of the term 'tenant' as contained in section 2(i) of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 was almost identical with the definition of the term in section 2(1) of the madhya pradesh .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 1987 (SC)

Poonam Lata Vs. M.L. Wadhawan and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-07-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC2098; [1988]63CompCas649(SC); 1987(3)Crimes209(SC); 1987(14)ECC17; JT1987(3)SC305; 1987(1)SCALE1301; (1987)4SCC48; [1987]3SCR840

1. petitioner's husband, shital kumar, was detained by an order passed by the additional secretary to the government of india, ministry of finance, department of revenue, dated february 28, 1986, made in exercise of powers vested under section 3(1) of the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the cofeposa'). the petitioner made an application to this court under article 32 in writ petition (crl.) no. 292 of 1986 challenging that order of detention. in the earlier writ application, on 15th of may, 1986, the learned vacation judge of this court made an order for the release of the detenu on parole on the following terms:the detenu is released on parole until further orders on the condition that he will report to the directorate of revenue, new delhi, every day and the directorate will be at liberty to direct him to explain his conduct during this time.... in the meantime the respondents will be at liberty to make an application for the revocation of the parole if any misconduct or any other activity comes to their notice which requires the revocation of the parole.on 3rd march, 1987, the writ petition was listed for hearing before the bench consisting of both of us. in the writ petition, several contentions had been raised but mr. jethmalani, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions to only one aspect, namely, that the period of parole, that is, from 15th may, 1986, till february 22, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 1987 (SC)

K. Ch. Prasad Vs. Smt. J. Vanalatha Devi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-10-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC722; 1988(36)BLJR197; 1987CriLJ697; 1987(1)Crimes482(SC); JT1987(1)SC387; 1987(1)SCALE282; (1987)2SCC52; [1987]2SCR216

g.l. oza, j.1. this appeal has been filed by the appellant after obtaining leave from this court against an order passed by the high court of andhra pradesh dated 28.11.1983 wherein the high court rejected a revision petition filed by the appellant.2. against the appellant a complaint was filed in the court of metropolitan magistrate, hyderabad under section 120(b) read with sections 467 and 471 of the indian penal code. after summons were issued the appellant raised objection about the maintainability of this prosecution for want of sanction under section 197 of the criminal procedure code. the objection was rejected by the metropolitan magistrate, hyderabad and against the order of the metropolitan magistrate a revision petition was filed in the high court which has been rejected by the impugned order passed by the andhra pradesh high court.3. the learned metropolitan magistrate held that section 197 is attracted only when a public servant is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the government. the appellant is an officer who is removable from his office by a competent authority and no sanction of the government is necessary. consequently section 197 in terms does not apply. this view was affirmed by the high court of andhra pradesh.4. it was contended by the learned counsel that after nationalisation as the banks are nationalised the appellant will fall within the definition of public servant and therefore section 197 will be attracted. it was also .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1987 (SC)

State of Karnataka Vs. Shivalingaiah Alias Handigidda

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-01-1987

Reported in : AIR1988SC115; 1988CriLJ394; JT1987(2)SC226; 1988Supp(1)SCC533

ordera.p. sen, j.1. the state of karnataka has preferred this appeal by way of special leave against the judgment of the karnataka high court dated november 8, 1982. by the judgment, the high court has set aside the order of acquittal recorded by the sessions judge, bangalore acquitting the respondent of an offence under section 302, penal code, 1860 and convicted him of having voluntarily caused simple hurt punishable under section 323. the respondent has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. the short question involved is whether the act of the respondent falls within clause thirdly to section 300 and therefore he is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under section 302 penal code. the gravamen of the charge against the respondent was that after an altercation he suddenly pulled the deceased giri gowda by his testicles and squeezed the same as a result of which he fell down unconscious and died almost instantaneously. the testimony of dr. t.c. seetharam, medical officer, l.f. hospital, chennapatna shows that death was as a result of cardiac arrest resulting from shock due to injuries to the testis. the learned sessions judge held that the offence made out by the prosecution fell only under section 323 penal code and sentenced the respondent to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. on appeal, the high court held that it was difficult to draw an inference that the respondent had any intention to kill or murder the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 1987 (SC)

Controller of Estate Duty, Kanpur Vs. Vithal Das

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-03-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC791; [1987]165ITR23(SC); JT1987(1)SC348; 1987(1)SCALE232; (1987)2SCC37; 1987(1)LC369(SC)

sabyasachi mukharji, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the high court of allahabad dated 15th july, 1971. the following two questions were referred by the central board of direct taxes under section 64(1) of the estate duty act, 1953 (hereinafter called the act) to the high court :(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, only half share of the properties included in the estate duty assessment of the deceased should have been included as property passing or deemed to pass on his death under section 7 of the act?(2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of rs. 80.000/- standing in the names of the grand children of the deceased was correctly included in his estate?2. this reference arose out of the proceedings in connection with the estate duty assessment in respect of the estate of late l. kedar nath, who died on the 8th september, 1955. shri vithal das, the eldest son of the deceased, filed the estate duty return in respect of the properties left by kedar nath and had showed the value of the estate by the deceased at rs. 1.57.764/-. the assistant controller of estate duty, however, computed the value at rs. 3,09,972/-and levied the estate duty on accountable person. the assistant controller also discovered certain deposits amounting to rs. 80.000/- in the names of five grandsons and one grand-daughter of the deceased rs. 15.000/- each in the name of the grandsons and rs. 5.000/- in the name .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 02 1987 (SC)

P.N. Kumar and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-02-1987

Reported in : (1988)1CompLJ105(SC); 1987(32)ELT229(SC); [1988]172ITR624(SC); JT1987(4)SC232; 1987(3)KarLJ109; 1987(2)SCALE901; (1987)4SCC609; [1988]1SCR732; [1988]70STC189(SC); 1988(1)LC

order1. in this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction quashing the order no. tax/hq/spl. cell/83-1948 dated 4-8-1983 issued by the deputy assessor and collector of the assessment and collection department of the municipal corporation of delhi fixing the rateable value of the property of the petitioners at rs. 12,10,300 with effect from 9.6.1981 and the consequent bill 180/11 dated 4-8-1983 served on the petitioners making a demand of arrears of rs. 14,07,328 as a composite amount of property tax, fire tax, water tax, scavenging tax and education tax and making any other order as the court deems fit. the first petitioner is a shareholder and company secretary of the company m/s. siddharth inter-continental hotels (india) ltd. and the second petitioner is m/s. siddharth inter-continental hotels (india) ltd. on 26.10.1987 we passed an order adjourning the case to 2.11.1987 to hear the learned counsel for the parties on the question whether the above petition under article 32 of the constitution should be decided by this court or whether we should direct the petitioners to approach the high court under article 226 of the constitution. accordingly we have heard the learned counsel.2. we are of the view that this petition should be disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a petition, if so advised, before the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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