Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: us supreme court Year: 1982 Page 1 of about 87 results (0.124 seconds)

Oct 13 1982 (SC)

Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Bombay Vs. Official Liquidator, H ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-13-1982

Reported in : AIR1982SC1497; 1983(0)KLT1(SC); 1982(2)SCALE875; (1982)3SCC358; [1983]1SCR561; 1982(14)LC839(SC)

..... it cannot be disputed that the terms of the document on the basis of which the electricity board has claimed the amount from the bank constitute a contract of guarantee and not a contract of indemnity. under that document the bank has undertaken to pay any amount not exceeding rs. 50,000 to the electricity board within forty eight hours of the demand ..... between the electricity board and the company in liquidation. but the transactions viz. (1) the bank guarantee executed by the bank in favour of the electricity board, (2) the contracts of supply entered into between the electricity board and the company in liquidation and (3) the document under which the company in liquidation had given a fixed deposit receipt and ..... /- (rupees fifty thousand only) to the said maharashtra state electricity board, bombay on behalf of m/s. cochin malleables (private) ltd., trichur, who have tendered and/or contracted or may tender or contract hereafter for supply of materials equipment or service to the maharashtra state electricity board and have been exempted from payment of earnest money and/or security deposit against ..... maharashtra state electricity board (hereinafter referred to as 'the electricity board'). cochin malleables (p) ltd. (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as 'the company in liquidation') used to enter into contracts with the electricity board before it was ordered to be wound up by the high court of kerala to supply goods to the electricity board pursuant to tenders which were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 1982 (FN)

Fidelity Fed. S. and L. Vs. De La Cuesta

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-28-1982

..... authority to the board to regulate the mortgage lending practices of federal savings and loans. in order to perform this role, the board may take into account state property and contract law which governs real estate transactions in general, and the enforceability and interpretation of mortgage lending instruments in particular. thus, it would be within the board's power to ..... pretty largely on homes of the type contemplated in the act"); tr. of oral arg. 4 (approximately 78% of savings and loan associations' assets are invested in mortgage loan contracts). moreover, congress directed that, in regulating federal savings and loans, the board consider "the best practices of local mutual thrift and home-financing institutions in the united states," which ..... effect of a regulation, issued by the federal home loan bank board (board), permitting federal savings and loan associations to use "due-on-sale" clauses in their mortgage contracts. appellees dispute both the board's intent and its statutory authority to displace restrictions imposed by the california supreme court on the exercise of these clauses. i a the board ..... and the regulation does not evaporate because the regulation simply permits, but does not compel, federal savings and loan associations to include a due-on-sale clause in their contracts and to enforce that clause when the security property is transferred. while compliance with both the regulation and the wellenkamp rule may not be a physical impossibility, that rule .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1982 (FN)

Merrill Lynch Vs. Curran

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-03-1982

..... expressed his concern to preserve existing state and federal jurisdiction. it is equally plausible that he was thinking primarily of federal antitrust jurisdiction and state court jurisdiction over contract claims. these were, in fact, precisely the grounds on which three other witnesses, appearing before the same senate committee as senator clark, criticized the language of ..... price increases, a group of entrepreneurs described in the complaints as the "short sellers" formed a conspiracy to depress the price of the may maine potato futures contract. the principal participants in this "short conspiracy" were large processors of potatoes who then were negotiating with a large potato growers association on the cash market. the ..... 15 ] and prevent the "manipulation of prices or the cornering of any grain by the dealers or operators upon such board." [ footnote 16 ] the requirement that designated contract markets page 456 u. s. 362 police themselves and the prohibitions against disseminating misleading information and manipulating prices have been part of our law ever since. in 1936, congress ..... must be regulated by an organized exchange. in addition to its regulatory responsibilities, the exchange must maintain detailed records and perform a clearing function to discharge the offsetting contracts that the short or long speculators have no desire to perform. [ footnote 9 ] the operation of the exchange creates employment opportunities for futures commission merchants, who solicit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 1982 (FN)

Enmund Vs. Florida

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jul-02-1982

..... robinson v. california, 370 u. s. 660 , 370 u. s. 667 (1962), a statute making narcotics addiction a crime, even though such addiction "is apparently an illness which may be contracted innocently or involuntarily," was struck down under the eighth amendment. similarly, in weems v. united states, the court invalidated a statute making it a crime for a public official to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 29 1982 (FN)

General Bldg. Contractors Assn., Inc. Vs. Pennsylvania

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-29-1982

..... part of both the union (local 542) and the joint apprenticeship and training committee (jatc), a body composed of officials from the union and the petitioner contracting associations, which jointly administered the apprenticeship and training program. as a result, the only question that the court need address today is whether limited injunctive liability ..... hiring would actually be governed by the agreement, the district court's theory presumably would also permit the imposition of liability on the attorneys who actually conducted the contract negotiations. we are unaware of any authority supporting such an extended application of respondeat superior. [ footnote 19 ] according to respondents, the district court's ..... protecting civil rights, including 42 u.s.c. 1981. the complaint sought to redress racial discrimination in the operation of an exclusive hiring hall established in contracts between local 542 of the international union of operating engineers and construction industry employers doing business within the union's jurisdiction. respondents also alleged discrimination in ..... district court under 42 u.s.c. 1981, seeking to redress alleged racial discrimination in the operation of an exclusive hiring hall established in collective bargaining contracts between the local union representing operating engineers and petitioner trade associations and construction industry employers. respondents also alleged discrimination in the operation of an apprenticeship program established .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 07 1982 (FN)

Jackson Transit Auth. Vs. Transit Union

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-07-1982

..... j., dissenting). because a federal court should exercise extreme caution before assuming jurisdiction not clearly conferred by congress, we should not condone the implication of federal jurisdiction over contract claims in the absence of an unambiguous expression of congressional intent. as i do not view this position as inconsistent with the reasoning of the court, i join its ..... footnote 5 ] several courts of appeals, in addition to the sixth circuit, have decided that 13(c) authorizes federal suits for violations of 13(c) agreements and collective bargaining contracts between recipients of umta funds and transit unions. division 587, amalgamated transit union, afl-cio v. municipality of metropolitan seattle, 663 f.2d 875 (ca9 1981); local div. ..... those arrangements; it specifies five different varieties of protective provisions that must be included among the 13(c) arrangements; and it expressly incorporates the protective arrangements into the grant contract between the recipient and the federal government. [ footnote 7 ] see n 2, supra. on the other hand, labor relations between local governments and their employees are ..... 457 u. s. 18 are the preservation of benefits under existing collective bargaining agreements and the continuation of collective bargaining rights. the protective arrangements must be specified in the contract granting federal aid. [ footnote 2 ] b in 1966, petitioner city of jackson, tenn., applied for federal aid to convert a failing private bus company into a .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 1982 (FN)

North Haven Bd. of Educ. Vs. Bell

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-17-1982

..... provides in full: "each federal department and agency which is empowered to extend federal financial assistance to any education program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 901 with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of ..... the benefits of," or "subjected to discrimination under" education programs receiving federal financial support. employees who directly participate in federal programs or who directly benefit from federal grants, loans, or contracts clearly fall within the first two protective categories described in 901(a). see islesboro school comm. v. califano, 593 f.2d 424, 426 (ca1), cert. denied, 444 u.s. 972 ..... the trumbull school district. potz alleged that trumbull had discriminated against her on the basis of gender with respect to job assignments, working conditions, and the failure to renew her contract. in september, 1978, hew notified trumbull that it had violated title ix and warned that corrective action, including respondent's reinstatement, must be taken. trumbull then filed suit in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 1982 (FN)

American Soc'y of Mech. Eng'rs Vs. Hydrolevel

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-17-1982

..... . it so expands the concept of vicarious liability as to leave little content, in this case, to the requirement in 1 of the sherman act that antitrust plaintiffs demonstrate a contract, combination, or conspiracy. indeed, the court never identifies who conspired with whom. did james -- acting for asme -- conspire with hardin -- acting for mcdonnell & miller, inc., and ..... suborned the professor who wrote the report, the court's rule would subject the school to the full brunt of treble damages. section 1 of the sherman act requires a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade. the court attaches liability in this case on the dubious notion that asme somehow has "conspired" with mcdonnell & miller. ..... advance the interests of a particular trade or occupation. . . . they are not business combinations. they do not deal with contracts, agreements, etc. they have no connection with them." 21 cong.rec. 2562 (1890). when senator hoar expressed the concern that the bill would prohibit temperance organizations, and proposed an ..... to "these great trusts, these great corporations, these large moneyed institutions," senator sherman answered as follows: "the bill as reported contains three or four simple propositions which relate only to contracts, combinations, agreements made with a view and designed to carry out a certain purpose. . . . it does not interfere in the slightest degree with voluntary associations . . . to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1982 (FN)

Merrion Vs. Jicarilla Apache Tribe

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-25-1982

..... which also may derive from different sources. these differences, however, do not alter the principles for determining whether any of these governments has waived a sovereign power through contract, and we perceive no principled reason for holding that the different attributes of indian sovereignty require different treatment in this regard. without regard to its source, sovereign power ..... , even when unexercised, is an enduring presence that governs all contracts subject to the sovereign's jurisdiction, and will remain intact unless surrendered in unmistakable terms. no claim is asserted in this litigation, nor could one be, that petitioners ..... civilized tribes that required non-indians to pay annual permit fees. the complainants owned cattle and horses that were grazing on land in the chickasaw nation pursuant to contracts with individual members of the tribe. complainants filed suit in the district of columbia seeking an injunction preventing federal officials from removing their cattle and horses from ..... nation or tribe within the territory of the united states shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the united states may contract by treaty: provided, further, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to invalidate or impair the obligation of any treaty heretofore lawfully made and ratified with any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1982 (FN)

Kaiser Steel Corp. Vs. Mullins

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-13-1982

..... action brought directly against the union. "the employer may still have its claims adjudicated by bringing, in the proper forum, a timely suit against the union for rescission of the contract, antitrust damages, or a declaration that an unfair labor practice has been committed. . . ." huge, supra, at 465 (concurring opinion). [ footnote 2/5 ] section 306(a) simply ..... the defense of illegality. respondents' reliance on lewis v. benedict coal corp., 361 u. s. 459 (1960), is no more persuasive. there, as here, a collective bargaining contract bound the coal company to contribute to an employee trust fund. when sued by the trustees for delinquent contributions, the employers defended on the ground that the union had violated ..... purchased coal would be to enforce a bargain that violates two different federal statutes, the sherman act and the nlra. sections 1 and 2 of the sherman act prohibit contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade, as well as monopolization and attempts to monopolize. kaiser urges that the purchased coal clause is illegal under these sections because ..... represented by the redstone workers' association, and their wages and benefits during the period covered by the 1974 agreement were equal or superior to those required by the umw contract. nevertheless, the umw has repeatedly attempted to become the collective bargaining representative for mid-continent's employees. according to affidavits submitted by kaiser, the purchased coal clause was .....

Tag this Judgment!


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