Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: us supreme court Year: 2000 Page 5 of about 43 results (0.075 seconds)

Jan 24 2000 (FN)

Nixon Vs. Shrink Missouri Government Pac

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-24-2000

nixon v. shrink missouri government pac - 528 u.s. 377 (2000) october term, 1999 syllabus nixon, attorney general of missouri, et al. v. shrink missouri government pac et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit no. 98-963. argued october 5, 1999-decided january 24, 2000 respondents shrink missouri government pac, a political action committee, and zev david fredman, a candidate for the 1998 republican nomination for missouri state auditor, filed suit, alleging that a missouri statute imposing limits ranging from $275 to $1,075 on contributions to candidates for state office violated their first and fourteenth amendment rights. shrink missouri gave fredman $1,025 in 1997, and $50 in 1998, and represented that, without the statutory limitation, it would contribute more. fredman alleged he could campaign effectively only with more generous contributions than the statute allowed. on crossmotions for summary judgment, the district court sustained the statute. applying buckley v. valeo, 424 u. s. 1 (per curiam), the court found adequate support for the law in the proposition that large contributions raise suspicions of influence peddling tending to undermine citizens' confidence in government integrity. the court rejected respondents' contention that inflation since buckley's approval of a federal $1,000 restriction meant that the state limit of $1,075 for a statewide office could not be constitutional today. in reversing, the eighth circuit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2000 (SC)

Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. V.M. Jog Engineering Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-29-2000

Reported in : AIR2000SC3166; [2001]106CompCas267(SC); 2000(4)CTC687; 2000(6)SCALE654; [2000]Supp3SCR542; (2001)1SCC663

..... in order that he may claim reimbursement for any payment he makes under the credit or the indemnity of an agent, the intermediary banker must obey strictly, the instructions he receives, for by acting on them, he accepts then and thus enters into contractual relations with the ..... 's judgment which has been followed both in england and by this court, in several cases.legal relation of a negotiating bank vis-a-vis the issuing bank:62. the contract between the issuing banker and the paying or negotiating (intermediary) banker may partake of a dual nature. the relationship is mainly that of principal and agent, mandator and mandatory. ..... india, the chartered bank of india. australia and china. the correspondent had not confirmed the credit. the applicant alleged that what had been shipped was rubbish rather than the bristles contracted to be supplied. the chartered bank (the collecting bank) which received the documents from the seller for 'collection', applied for dismissing the buyer's claim. (this was a proceeding ..... of international commerce'. he said:except possibly in clear cases of fraud of which the banks have notice, the courts will leave the merchants to settle their disputes under the contracts by litigation or arbitration... otherwise, trust in international commerce could be irreparably damaged.denning m.r. stated in edward and owen engineering ltd v. barclays bank international ltd. 1978 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2000 (SC)

Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Another

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-31-2000

Reported in : 2000(1)ALD(Cri)848; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)349; 2000(2)BLJR1623; 2000CriLJ2983; [2000]2SCR859

..... that on insistence of respondent no. 2 two other brothers of the appellants signed the sale deed as witnesses. by way of a further safeguard the appellants executed a separate indemnity deed on the same day in which they undertook to indemnify any loss caused to the society on account of any objection which may be raised by any co-sharer ..... but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is ..... acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest.15. in determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. it depends upon the intention of the accused at the time to inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct .....

Tag this Judgment!


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