Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Sorted by: old Court: us supreme court Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 37 results (0.063 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!

Jan 10 2006 (FN)

Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. Vs. Reeder-simco Gmc, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-10-2006

..... competitive injury from price discrimination. specifically, the court pointed to evidence showing that (1) volvo intended to reduce the number of its dealers; (2) reeder lost the hiland dairy contract, for which it competed head to head with another volvo dealer; (3) reeder would have earned more profits, had it received the concessions other dealers received; and (4) reeder ..... court of appeals observed that reeder was more than an unsuccessful bidder, id. , at 709. the four instances in which reeder actually purchased volvo trucks following successful bids on contracts, the court concluded, sufficed to render reeder a purchaser within the meaning of the act. ibid. the court of appeals next determined that a jury could reasonably decide that reeder ..... volvo on several occasions when reeder bid unsuccessfully against non-volvo dealers (and therefore did not purchase volvo trucks), with more favorable concessions received by other volvo dealers who gained contracts on which reeder did not bid. id. , at 706 707. reeder s vice-president, heck, testified that reeder did not look for instances in which it received a ..... it on several occasions when it bid unsuccessfully against non-volvo dealers (and therefore did not purchase volvo trucks), with more favorable concessions accorded other volvo dealers who gained contracts on which reeder did not bid. reeder did not look for instances in which it received a larger concession than another volvo dealer, but acknowledged it was quite possible .....

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!

Feb 21 2006 (FN)

Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. Vs. Cardegna

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-21-2006

..... , see 388 u. s., at 403 404, this rule ultimately arises out of 2, the faa s substantive command that arbitration agreements be treated like all other contracts. the rule of severability establishes how this equal-footing guarantee for a written [arbitration] provision is to be implemented. respondents reading of prima paint as establishing nothing more ..... them to this case, we conclude that because respondents challenge the agreement, but not specifically its arbitration provisions, those provisions are enforceable apart from the remainder of the contract. the challenge should therefore be considered by an arbitrator, not a court. in declining to apply prima paint s rule of severability, the florida supreme court relied on ..... court of florida [february 21, 2006] justice scalia delivered the opinion of the court. we decide whether a court or an arbitrator should consider the claim that a contract containing an arbitration provision is void for illegality. i respondents john cardegna and donna reuter entered into various deferred-payment transactions with petitioner buckeye check cashing (buckeye), in ..... rendered invalid by the usurious finance charge. because this challenges the agreement, and not specifically its arbitration provisions, the latter are enforceable apart from the remainder of the contract, and the challenge should be considered by an arbitrator, not a court. the florida supreme court erred in declining to apply prima paint s severability rule, and respondents .....

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!

Feb 22 2006 (FN)

Arbaugh Vs. Y and H Corp.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-22-2006

arbaugh v. y & h corp. - 04-944 (2006) syllabus october term, 2005 arbaugh v. y & h corp. supreme court of the united states arbaugh v . y & h corp. dba the moonlight cafe certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit no. 04 944.?argued january 11, 2006 decided february 22, 2006 title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any [employee] with respect to sex, 42 u. s. c. 2000e 2(a)(1), and defines employer as a person who has fifteen or more employees, 2000e(b). the act s jurisdictional provision empowers federal courts to adjudicate civil actions brought under title vii. 2000e 5(f)(3). title vii actions also fit within the judicial code s grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to federal courts over actions arising under federal law. 28 u. s. c. 1331. at the time title vii was enacted, 1331 contained a $10,000 amount-in-controversy threshold, which left title vii claims below that amount uncovered. section 2000e 5(f)(3) assured that the amount-in-controversy limitation would not impede a title vii complainant s access to a federal forum. since 1980, when congress amended 1331 to eliminate the amount-in-controversy threshold, 2000e 5(f)(3) has served simply to underscore congress intention to provide a federal forum for title vii claims. because congress has also authorized federal courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims linked to a federal claim, 28 u. s. c. 1367, title .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2006 (FN)

Texaco Inc. Vs. Dagher

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-28-2006

..... long recognized that congress intended to outlaw only unreasonable restraints (emphasis added)). instead, this court presumptively applies rule of reason analysis, under which antitrust plaintiffs must demonstrate that a particular contract or combination is in fact unreasonable and anticompetitive before it will be found unlawful. see, e.g. , id. , at 10 19 (concluding that vertical price-fixing arrangements are subject ..... fixing applies to an important and increasingly popular form of business organization, the joint venture. 545 u. s. ___ (2005). ii section 1 of the sherman act prohibits [e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states. 15 u. s. c. 1. this court has not ..... outlaw only unreasonable restraints, e.g. , state oil co. v. khan, 522 u. s. 3 , 10. under rule of reason analysis, antitrust plaintiffs must demonstrate that a particular contract or combination is in fact unreasonable and anticompetitive. see, e.g. , id. , at 10 19. per se liability is reserved for plainly anticompetitive agreements. national soc. of professional engineers v ..... se illegal under 1 of the sherman act for a lawful, economically integrated joint venture to set the prices at which it sells its products. although 1 prohibits [e]very contract [or] combination in restraint of trade, 15 u. s. c. 1, this court has not taken a literal approach to that language, recognizing, instead, that congress intended to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 2006 (FN)

Jones Vs. Flowers

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-26-2006

jones v. flowers - 04-1477 (2006) syllabus october term, 2005 jones v. flowers supreme court of the united states jones v . flowers et al. certiorari to the supreme court of arkansas no. 04 1477.?argued january 17, 2006 decided april 26, 2006 petitioner jones continued to pay the mortgage on his arkansas home after separating from his wife and moving elsewhere in the same city. once the mortgage was paid off, the property taxes which had been paid by the mortgage company went unpaid, and the property was certified as delinquent. respondent commissioner of state lands mailed jones a certified letter at the property s address, stating that unless he redeemed the property, it would be subject to public sale in two years. nobody was home to sign for the letter and nobody retrieved it from the post office within 15 days, so it was returned to the commissioner, marked unclaimed. two years later, the commissioner published a notice of public sale in a local newspaper. no bids were submitted, so the state negotiated a private sale to respondent flowers. before selling the house, the commissioner mailed another certified letter to jones, which was also returned unclaimed. flowers purchased the house and had an unlawful detainer notice delivered to the property. it was served on jones daughter, who notified him of the sale. he filed a state-court suit against respondents, alleging that the commissioner s failure to provide adequate notice resulted in the taking of his property without .....

Tag this Judgment!


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