Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Year: 1946 Page 8 of about 130 results (0.105 seconds)

Apr 22 1946 (FN)

Utah Junk Co. Vs. Porter

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-22-1946

..... the price control act. the controversy concerns petitioner's lawful right to collect this processing charge as previously agreed upon page 328 u. s. 41 between the parties to the contract. claiming that the price schedule governing the sales in question was invalid insofar as it failed to permit an allowance for processing, petitioners filed a protest with the administrator. the ..... a protestant in petitioner's plight because the validity of the old schedule may be otherwise tested. the only other way implies the readiness of the customer to pay the contract price for the processing charge and its acceptance by the petitioner, subjecting both to civil and criminal actions for violations of the act. with the consent of the trial court ..... the administrator's insistence on the validity of the old maximum scrap price schedule is not challenged by violation, it could not be tested by bringing a suit on the contract for the additional price. yakus v. united states, 321 u. s. 414 . finally, apart from a construction of the statute which we are bound to reject, the administrator seeks to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1946 (PC)

Eangoli Krishnan Vs. Kuniyll Soopi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-22-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Mad274; (1947)1MLJ32

..... think it right to unsettle the law on a point such as this. in these circumstances, the action must be deemed to have been brought on the foot of the contract in writing registered, although the period of twelve years mentioned in ex. p-1 had expired. the learned advocate for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision in seydarakath ..... twelve years mentioned in ex. p-1 having expired, the suit brought by the assignee could not be held to be a suit brought for breach of the contract under ex. p-1. this argument ignores the provisions of section 5 of the malabar compensation for tenants improvements act (i of 1900). under that section, where there have been ..... lease, and consequently it was held that article 116 was applicable and not article no. the suits covered by article 116 are suits for compensation for the breach of a contract in writing registered. here ex. p-1 is a registered marupat and hence obviously that article is applicable.3. the learned advocate for the petitioner contends that the period of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 1946 (PC)

Ponnayya Moopanar Vs. Suppammal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-28-1946

Reported in : (1946)1MLJ303

..... has been suggested that although the parties did intend ex. p-6 to be a reference to arbitration, the subject-matter of the dispute is described so vaguely that the contract embodied in the reference must be deemed to be void for uncertainty. this contention must also fail. there is, in our opinion, no uncertainty whatever about this reference. the document ..... detail every matter which is in dispute. a common form in use in england is ' all disputes arising out of the contract ' and in russell on ' arbitration ' the suggested form for submission to arbitrators of disputes arising out of a contract for purchase runs as follows:. whereas by an agreement dated. . and whereas disputes and differences exist between the said (vendor) and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 1946 (PC)

O.C. Ganguly Vs. Kamalpat Sing Dugar

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-16-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Cal236

..... right of occupation of the land, though subject to certain reservations, or to a restriction of the purposes for which it may be used, it is a lease; if the contract is merely for the use of the property in a certain way and on certain terms, while it remains in the possession and control of the owner, it is a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 1946 (FN)

United States Vs. Carmack

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-09-1946

..... of the proposed exchange. september 25, 1941, the action administrator of the federal works agency advised the attorney general that, under authority of the public buildings act, the agency had contracted for the exchange. after referring to his failure to secure title by voluntary conveyance from the city in spite of the willingness of the city officials to make the exchange .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 1946 (PC)

Nanipada Saha and ors. Vs. Nilima Probha Nandi

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-10-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Cal19

..... the preliminary decree was passed. the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent contends that interest at 8 per cent, that is to say, interest not according to the contract but at the rate scaled down in terms of section 30, bengal money-lenders act can be awarded from the date on which the new preliminary decree was passed till .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 1946 (PC)

Ram Kumar Sarogi Vs. Babulal Goenka

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-08-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Cal339

..... in some way adversely affects the electric supply co.; and that is all that the present accused is said to have done. whether in doing so he has broken his contract with the tenant is a matter which the civil courts can determine. but i am satisfied that the facts proved do not constitute an offence punishable under section 40, electricity .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1946 (FN)

Ashcraft Vs. Tennessee

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-25-1946

ashcraft v. tennessee - 327 u.s. 274 (1946) u.s. supreme court ashcraft v. tennessee, 327 u.s. 274 (1946) ashcraft v. tennessee no. 381 argued february 6, 7, 1946 decided february 25, 1946 327 u.s. 274 certiorari to the supreme court of tennessee syllabus 1. on retrial of petitioner, whose conviction in a criminal case in a state court had been reversed by this court on the ground that it had been obtained by use of a coerced confession, ashcraft v. tennessee, 322 u. s. 143 , the jury was permitted to hear testimony narrating everything (except the confession) that took place during the inquisition at which the confession was obtained. this resulted in another conviction. held: there was no relevant distinction between the use of this evidence and the use of the confession, and the conviction is reversed as being contrary to the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. p. 327 u. s. 278 . 2. in oral argument before this court in the earlier proceeding, the state's attorney admitted that the confession was the only evidence against petitioner, and this was mentioned in the opinion of this court, which reversed the conviction and remanded the cause to the state supreme court for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this court. held: the mandate of this court did not forbid a new trial of petitioner. p. 279, n. *. 3. a state supreme court's construction of its own mandate is final. p. 279, n. *. reversed. page 327 u. s. 275 petitioner was convicted as an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 1946 (PC)

In Re: Sunderji Laljee Khakhar

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-13-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Bom30; (1946)48BOMLR498

leonard stone, kt., c.j.1. this is a reference under section 5 of the court-fees act, a controversy having arisen with regard to the amount of fees which must be paid in taking out a succession certificate. the contention of the petitioner is that on a proper reading of articles 11 and 12 of the court-fees act, 1870, as superseded by the bombay finance act (ii of 1932), the fee is to be charged on the amount or value of every security mentioned separately in the three schedules to the petition and not on the aggregate amount or value of the securities and therefore as the value of each share certificate separately mentioned in the schedules is less than rs. 1,000 the petitioner is not liable to pay any fee at all. the question actually referred by the assistant prothonotary is:whether the petitioner is liable to pay probate court-fees on the succession certificate on the aggregate value of the shares mentioned in the three schedules annexed to the petition ?2. now before approaching articles 11 and 12 of the court-fees act as extended it is necessary to go to the charging sections which provide for the taking out of the succession certificates. they are to be found in part x of the indian succession act, 1925. it is necessary to say this by way of introduction that under the indian succession act it is not in respect of every estate that either probate or letters of administration have to be taken out, and in the case of a hindu who dies intestate-which is the case before us- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1946 (PC)

Gedela Atchayya and ors. Vs. Koppisetti Appalaraju and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-14-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Mad109; (1946)2MLJ233

orderchandrasekhara aiyar, j.1. original suit no. 204 of 1929 was a suit to recover possession of a site from defendants 1 to 3, to have a street restored, and for the payment of a sum of rs. 50 as damages for the year 1928. the plaint was presented on 13th july, 1929. there was a decree in favour of the plaintiffs on 17th august, 1931, directing defendants 1 to 3 to remove the enclosure around the site that they had put up and to put the plaintiffs in possession of it so that it might be available for communal user of the plaintiffs and the defendants; the street was to be restored to its original condition, and defendants 1 to 3 were directed to pay the plaintiffs rs. 30 as damages for the year 1928. there was no claim for mesne profits subsequent to 1928 and the decree awarded none. the decree-holders applied to the district munsiff in i.a. no. 221 of 1943 for the ascertainment of future mesne profits under order 20, rule 12, civil procedure code and for a decree for the amount that may be ascertained. they were resisted by the first defendant, one of the three judgment-debtors, who pleaded that the liability had become discharged by reason of section 10, clause (2) of the madras debt conciliation act, 1936, (a) as he applied for a settlement of his dpbts and the decree-holders did not file any statement setting out this debt arising in connection with future mesne profits and (b) that the application under order 20, rule 12, civil procedure code, was misconceived, as the .....

Tag this Judgment!

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