Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: us supreme court Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 37 results (0.137 seconds)

Jul 06 2006 (SC)

State Bank of India and anr. Vs. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-06-2006

Reported in : AIR2007SC2361; 2006(5)ALD35(SC); 2006(3)AWC3124(SC); 2006(6)BomCR143; [2006]132CompCas565(SC); 2006(2)CTLJ1(SC); JT2006(6)SC152; 2006(6)MhLj257; 2006(6)SCALE600; (2006)6SCC

..... was erroneously described as a preamble stating:.the preamble of the document in question creates an impression that the said document is a contract of indemnity and not a contract of guarantee.9.4. the high court, furthermore, inserted some words in the said document which in fact were not there, as for example, in paragraph 31 of ..... . (now reliance energy ltd. v. fenner india ltd. and anr. : air2006sc1148 ). however, in this case, we have no doubt in our mind that the document in question constitutes a contract of indemnity and not an absolute or unconditional bank guarantee. the high court, therefore, erred in construing the same to be an unconditional and absolute bank guarantee.10. rate of interestcontention of ..... or placed on the record by the appellants. the officer of the bank stated before the court that the document in question was intended to be a contract of guarantee and not a contract of indemnity. the written document (exhibit-46) as quoted above lays emphasis on the preamble as under....yet again, in the said paragraph, the operative portion of the document ..... appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that:(i) on a true construction of the document dated 4th september, 1985, it would be seen that the same is a contract of indemnity and not a bank guarantee.(ii) the high court committed a manifest error in considering the oral evidence adduced by the parties in construing the said document dated 4th september .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2006 (SC)

Ashok Mahajan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-26-2006

Reported in : 2006(4)AWC3849(SC); IV(2006)BC578(SC); [2007]137CompCas704(SC); (2007)3CompLJ538(SC); JT2006(12)SC284; 2006(9)SCALE557; (2006)10SCC332

..... encumbrance; or(b) bar a suit or affect any other right or remedy against any person other than a person referred to in that section, in respect of a contract of indemnity or guarantee entered into a relation to an agreement referred to in that section or in respect of any interest referred to in clause (a).(2) where the property of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 2006 (FN)

Bp America Production Co. Vs. Burton

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-11-2006

..... states , 345 u. s. 59 , 66. the phrase action for money damages reinforces this reading because the term damages is generally used to mean pecuniary compensation or indemnity recovered in court. moreover, the fact that 2415(a) distinguishes between judicial and administrative proceedings by providing that an action must commence within one year after final decisions have ..... the farm credit administration); 10 cfr pt. 820, app. a, ix b (2006) ( administrative actions, such as determination of award fees where [department of energy] contracts provide for such determinations, will be considered separately from any civil penalties that may be imposed under this enforcement policy ). footnote 6 there was some question at oral argument whether ..... the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action accrues or within one year after final decisions have been rendered in applicable administrative proceedings required by contract or by law, whichever is later. (emphasis added.) whether this general 6-year statute of limitations also governs mms administrative payment orders concerning pre-september 1, 1996 ..... , referring to an administrative action, a civil or administrative action, or administrative enforcement actions. section 2415(a) s references to every action for money damages founded upon any contract (emphasis added) do not assist petitioners, as they do not broaden the ordinary meaning of the key term action. pennsylvania v. delaware valley citizens council for clean air .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 29 2006 (FN)

Hamdan Vs. Rumsfeld

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-29-2006

..... for the trial and punishment of offences, either of soldiers or civilians, unless in cases of a controlling necessity, which justifies what it compels, or at least insures acts of indemnity from the justice of the legislature. 4 wall., at 139 140.[ footnote 21 ] whether chief justice chase was correct in suggesting that the president may constitutionally convene military commissions without ..... common article 3 of the geneva conventions is meritless. common article 3 applies to armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the high contracting parties. 6 u. s. t., at 3318. pursuant to [his] authority as commander in chief and chief executive of the united states, the president has accept[ed] the legal ..... because, like article 2, it appears in all four geneva conventions, provides that in a conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the high contracting parties, each party[ footnote 62 ] to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, certain provisions protecting [p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities, including ..... between signatories. common article 3, which appears in all four conventions, provides that, in a conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the high contracting parties [ i.e., signatories], each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, certain provisions protecting [p]ersons placed hors de combat by detention, including .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 2006 (FN)

League of United LatIn American Citizens Vs. Perry

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-28-2006

league of united latin american citizens v. perry - 05-204 (2006) syllabus october term, 2005 league of united latin american citizens v.perry supreme court of the united states league of united latin american citizens et al. v . perry, governor of texas, et al. appeal from the united states district court for the eastern district of texas no. 05 204.?argued march 1, 2006 decided june 28, 2006 the 1990 census resulted in a 3-seat increase over the 27 seats previously allotted the texas congressional delegation. although the democratic party then controlled 19 of those 27 seats, as well as both state legislative houses and the governorship, change was in the air: the republican party had received 47% of the 1990 statewide vote, while the democrats had received only 51%. faced with a possible republican ascent to majority status, the legislature drew a congressional redistricting plan that favored democratic candidates. the republicans challenged the 1991 plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, but to no avail. the 2000 census authorized two additional seats for the texas delegation. the republicans then controlled the governorship and the state senate, but did not yet control the state house of representatives. so constituted, the legislature was unable to pass a redistricting scheme, resulting in litigation and the necessity of a court-ordered plan to comply with the u. s. constitution s one-person, one-vote requirement. conscious that the primary responsibility .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2006 (FN)

Domino's Pizza, Inc. Vs. McDonald

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-22-2006

..... r. r. donnelley & sons co., 541 u. s. 369 , 383 (2004). but while congress revised patterson s exclusion of postformation conduct, it let stand patterson s focus upon contract obligations. in fact, it positively reinforced that element by including in the new 1981(b) reference to a contractual relationship . mcdonald s complaint does identify a contractual relationship, the one ..... under which the plaintiff has rights.[ footnote 3 ] such a contractual relationship need not already exist, because 1981 protects the would-be contractor along with those who already have made contracts. we made this clear in runyon v. mccrary, 427 u. s. 160 (1976), which subjected defendants to liability under 1981 when, for racially-motivated reasons, they prevented individuals ..... , emotional distress, and humiliation. id. , at 16. the complaint demanded that domino s discharge its obligations under the contracts which mcdonald would have received, but for the discriminatory practices, including, but not limited to front pay, back pay and other lost benefits, as well as compensatory damages for ..... still ongoing, mcdonald filed the present 1981 claim against domino s in his personal capacity. the gravamen of mcdonald s complaint was that domino s had broken its contracts with jwm because of racial animus toward mcdonald, and that the breach had harmed mcdonald personally by causing him to suffer monetary damages and damages for pain and suffering .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 2006 (FN)

Anza Vs. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-05-2006

..... alleged responsible cause cannot be sufficiently established as to the whole or some part of that injury. so it may exist where a known and provable wrong or violation of contract appears, but the alleged loss or injury as a result of it cannot be certainly shown. sutherland 94. footnote 5 nor is it fair to require a plaintiff to prove .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 2006 (FN)

Gonzales Vs. Oregon

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-17-2006

gonzales v. oregon - 04-623 (2006) syllabus october term, 2005 gonzales v. oregon supreme court of the united states gonzales, attorney general, et al. v . oregon et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 04 623.?argued october 5, 2005 decided january 17, 2006 the controlled substances act (csa or act), which was enacted in 1970 with the main objectives of combating drug abuse and controlling legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances, criminalizes, inter alia , the unauthorized distribution and dispensation of substances classified in any of its five schedules. the attorney general may add, remove, or reschedule substances only after making particular findings, and on scientific and medical matters, he must accept the findings of the secretary of health and human services (secretary). these proceedings must be on the record after an opportunity for comment. the dispute here involves controlled substances listed in schedule ii, which are generally available only by written prescription, 21 u. s. c. 829(a). a 1971 regulation promulgated by the attorney general requires that such prescriptions be used for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice. 21 cfr 1306.04. to prevent diversion of controlled substances, the csa regulates the activity of physicians, who must register in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the attorney general. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 2006 (FN)

Fernandez-vargas Vs. Gonzales

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-22-2006

fernandez-vargas v. gonzales - 04-1376 (2006) syllabus october term, 2005 fernandez-vargas v. gonzales supreme court of the united states fernandez-vargas v . gonzales, attorney general certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit no. 04 1376.?argued march 22, 2006 decided june 22, 2006 immigration law has for some time provided that an order for removing an alien present unlawfully may be reinstated if he leaves and unlawfully reenters. the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996 (iirira) amended the immigration and nationality act (ina) to enlarge the class of illegal reentrants whose orders may be reinstated and limit the possible relief from a removal order available to them. see 241(a)(5), 8 u. s. c. 1235(a)(5). petitioner fernandez-vargas, a mexican citizen, illegally reentered the united states in 1982, after having been deported. he remained undetected for over 20 years, fathering a son in 1989 and marrying the boy s mother, a united states citizen, in 2001. after he filed an application to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident, the government began proceedings to reinstate his 1981 deportation order under 241(a)(5), and deported him. he petitioned the tenth circuit to review the reinstatement order, claiming that, because he illegally reentered the county before iirira s effective date, 241(a)(5) did not bar his application for adjustment of status, and that 241(a)(5) would be impermissibly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 2006 (FN)

Woodford Vs. Ngo

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-22-2006

woodford v. ngo - 05-416 (2006) syllabus october term, 2005 woodford v. ngo supreme court of the united states woodford et al. v . ngo certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 05 416.?argued march 22, 2006 decided june 22, 2006 the prison litigation reform act of 1995 (plra) requires a prisoner to exhaust any available administrative remedies before challenging prison conditions in federal court. 42 u. s. c. 1997e(a). respondent filed a grievance with california prison officials about his prison conditions, but it was rejected as untimely under state law. he subsequently sued petitioner officials under 1983 in the federal district court, which granted petitioners motion to dismiss on the ground that respondent had not fully exhausted his administrative remedies under 1997e(a). reversing, the ninth circuit held that respondent had exhausted those remedies because none remained available to him. held: the plra s exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion of administrative remedies. pp. 5 21. (a) petitioners claim that a prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court, but respondent contends that 1997e(a) allows suit once administrative remedies are no longer available, regardless of the reason. to determine the correct interpretation, the court looks for guidance to both administrative and habeas corpus law, .....

Tag this Judgment!


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