Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: us supreme court Year: 1956 Page 1 of about 49 results (0.091 seconds)

Feb 27 1956 (FN)

Mastro Plastics Corp. Vs. Labor Board

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-27-1956

..... modification;" "(2) offers to meet and confer with the other party for the purpose of negotiating a new contract or a contract containing the proposed modifications;" "(3) notifies the federal mediation and conciliation service within thirty days after such notice of the existence of a dispute, and simultaneously therewith notifies any state or territorial agency established to ..... mediate and conciliate disputes within the state or territory where the dispute occurred, provided no agreement has been reached by that time; and" "(4) continues in full force and effect, without .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1956 (SC)

Vikrama Das Mahant Vs. Daulat Ram Asthana and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-15-1956

Reported in : AIR1956SC382

jagannadhadas, j.1. this is an appeal by the first defendant against the affirming judgment and decree of the high court of allahabad dated 22-2-1949, on a certificate granted by the said court under article 133(1)(a) of the constitution. the suit out of which this appeal arises relates to an ancient thakurdwara in the village of amaulipur containing a temple of sri hanumanji and sri thakurji, the entire institution being known as amaulipur asthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the asthan').the asthan owns large property dedicated to it and specified in lists a, b and c of the plaint. the entire income of these properties is spent for the bhog of the idols and in maintaining a sada-bart for sadhoos and faqirs. there is a fairly long history of litigation relating to this asthan since about 1926 which it is necessary to set out for a correct appreciation of the points that arise for decision in the present appeal.2. one ganapat das, a previous mahant of the asthan died in the year 1920. he was succeeded by mahant bharat das, still alive, who according to the plaintiffs' case, became mentally deranged. bharat das appears to have executed on 11-5-1925, a power of attorney in favour of one gomati das.about a year later, i.e., on 10-7-1926, he executed another document purporting to transfer his mahantship in favour of the present first defendant-appellant, vikrama das. this led to a suit no. 27 of 1927 by gomati das against the present first defendant for the declarations that (a) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 1956 (SC)

Deoki Nandan Vs. Murlidhar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-04-1956

Reported in : AIR1957SC133; 1957(0)BLJR355; [1956]1SCR756

venkatarama ayyar, j. 1. the point for decision in this appeal is whether a thakurdwara of sri radhakrishnaji in the village of bhadesia in the district of sitapur is a private temple or a public one in which all the hindus are entitled to worship. 2. one sheo ghulam, a pious hindu and a resident of the said village, had the thakurdwara constructed during the years 1914-1916, and the idol of shri radhakrishnaji ceremoniously installed therein. he was himself in management of the temple and its affairs till 1928 when he died without any issue. on march 6, 1919, he had executed a will whereby he bequeathed all his lands to the thakur. the provisions of the will, in so far as they are material, will presently by referred to. the testator had two wives one of whom ram kuar, had predeceased him and the surviving widow, raj kuar, succeeded him as mutawalli in terms of the will and was in management till her death in 1933. then the first defendant, who is the nephew of sheo ghulam, got into possession of the properties as manager of the endowment in accordance with the provisions of the will. the appellant is a distant agnate of sheo ghulam, and on the allegation that the first defendant had been mismanaging the temple and denying the rights of the public therein, he moved the district court of sitapur for relief under the religious and charitable endowments act xiv of 1920, but the court declined to interfere on the ground that the endowment was private. an application to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 1956 (SC)

H.H. Raja Harinder Singh Vs. S. Karnail Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-20-1956

Reported in : AIR1957SC271; [1957]1SCR208

venkatarama aiyar, j. 1. the appellant was one of the candidates who stood for election to the legislative assembly of the patiala and east punjab states union from the faridkot constituency in the general elections held in 1954. he secured the largest number of votes, and was declared duly elected. the result was notified in the official gazette on february 27, 1954, and the return of the election expenses was published therein on may, 2, 1954. on may 18, 1954, the first respondent filed a petition under s. 81 of the representation of the people act no. xliii of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the act, and therein he prayed that the election of the appellant might be declared void on the ground that he and his agents had committed various corrupt and illegal practices, of which particulars were given. the appellant filed a written statement denying these allegations. he therein raised the further contention that the election petition had not been presented within the time limited by law, and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. rule 119, which prescribes the period within which election petitions have to be filed, runs, so far as it is material, as follows : 119. 'time within which an election petition shall be presented :- an election petition calling in question an election may, - (a) in the case where such petition is against a returned candidate, be presented under section 81 at any time after the date of publication of the name of such candidate under section 67 but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 1956 (FN)

Mesarosh Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Oct-10-1956

mesarosh v. united states - 352 u.s. 1 (1956) u.s. supreme court mesarosh v. united states, 352 u.s. 1 (1956) mesarosh v. united states no. 20 argued and decided october 10, 1956 opinions delivered november 5, 1956 352 u.s. 1 on motion to remand syllabus in a federal district court, petitioners were convicted of conspiring to violate the smith act by advocating the overthrow of the government of the united states by force and violence. the court of appeals affirmed. while a review was pending in this court, the solicitor general moved that the case be remanded to the district court for a determination as to the credibility of the testimony of one of the government witnesses at the trial. he stated that the government believes that the testimony of this witness at the trial "was entirely truthful and credible," but that, on the basis of information in its possession, the government now has serious reason to doubt the truthfulness of testimony given by the same witness in other proceedings. parts of the testimony of this witness in other proceedings were positively established as untrue, and the solicitor general stated on the argument that he believed other parts to be untrue. petitioners moved that the case be remanded to the district court for a new trial. held: solely on the basis of the government's representations in its written motion and the statements of the solicitor general during the argument on the motions, and without reaching any other issue, the government's .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 1956 (FN)

Cahill Vs. New York, N.H. and H. R. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-14-1956

cahill v. new york, n.h. & h. r. co. - 351 u.s. 183 (1956) u.s. supreme court cahill v. new york, n.h. & h. r. co., 351 u.s. 183 (1956) cahill v. new york, new haven & hartford railroad co. no. 436 decided may 14, 1956 351 u.s. 183 on a motion to recall and amend the judgment syllabus 1. the motion of respondent to recall the judgment of this court in this case is granted, and the judgment is amended to provide for a remand of the cause to the court of appeals for further proceedings. pp. 351 u. s. 183 -184. 2. the original order entered by the court in this case, 350 u.s. 898, is deemed erroneous, and it is recalled in the interest of fairness. p. 351 u. s. 184 . 3. even when a petition for rehearing has been denied, rule 58(4) of the rules of this court, barring consecutive and out-of-time petitions for rehearing, does not preclude a motion to correct the kind of error involved in the court's original order in this case. p. 351 u. s. 184 . 4. this cause is not moot, though the judgment has been paid. p. 351 u. s. 184 . 350 u.s. 898, judgment recalled and amended. per curiam. respondent filed a motion to recall and amend the judgment in the above-entitled cause, 350 u.s. 898, for the purpose of remanding the cause to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit for further proceedings. prior to the filing of this motion, and after the district court denied an application for a stay of execution, the judgment was satisfied, but petitioner was informed that .....

Tag this Judgment!

1956

Mesarosh Vs. Us

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-01-1956

mesarosh v. us - 352 u.s. 808 (1956) u.s. supreme court mesarosh v. us , 352 u.s. 808 (1956) 352 u.s. 808 stephen mesarosh, also known as steve nelson, et al., petitioners, v. united states of america. no. 20. supreme court of the united states october 8, 1956 solicitor general rankin and assistant attorney general tompkins, for the united states. messrs. frank j. donner, arthur kinoy, marshall perlin and hubert t. delany, for petitioners. mr. justice frankfurter. less than six months ago, in communist party v. subversive activities control board, 351 u.s. 115 , a case that raised important constitutional issues, this court refused to pass on those issues when newly discovered evidence was alleged to demonstrate that the record out of which those issues arose was tainted. it did so in the following language: 'when uncontested challenge is made that a finding of subversive design by petitioner was in part the product of three perjurious witnesses, it does not remove the taint for a reviewing court to find that there is ample innocent testimony to support the board's findings. if these witnesses in fact committed perjury in testifying in other cases on subject matter substantially like that of their testimony in the present proceedings, their testimony in this pro- page 352 u.s. 808 , 809 ceeding is inevitably discredited and the board's determination must duly take this fact into account. we cannot pass upon a record containing such challenged testimony. ...' 351 u.s. at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 1956 (FN)

United States Vs. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-11-1956

united states v. e. i. du pont de nemours & co. - 351 u.s. 377 (1956) u.s. supreme court united states v. e. i. du pont de nemours & co., 351 u.s. 377 (1956) united states v. e. i. du pont de nemours & co. no. 5 argued october 11, 1955 decided june 11, 1956 351 u.s. 377 appeal from the united states district court for the district of delaware syllabus in a civil action under 4 of the sherman act, the government charged that appellee had monopolized interstate commerce in cellophane in violation of 2 of the act. during the relevant period, appellee produced almost 75% of the cellophane sold in the united states; but cellophane constituted less than 20% of all flexible packaging materials sold in the united states. the trial court found that the relevant market for determining the extent of appellee's market control was the market for flexible packaging materials, and that competition from other materials in that market prevented appellee from possessing monopoly powers in its sales of cellophane. accordingly, it dismissed the complaint. held: the judgment is affirmed. pp. 351 u. s. 378 -404. (a) the ultimate consideration in determining whether an alleged monopolist violates 2 of the sherman act is whether the defendant controls prices and competition in the market for such part of trade or commerce as he is charged with monopolizing. p. 351 u. s. 380 . (b) a party has monopoly power contrary to 2 of the sherman act if it has, over "any part of the trade or commerce among the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1956 (FN)

Communist Party Vs. Sacb

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-30-1956

communist party v. sacb - 351 u.s. 115 (1956) u.s. supreme court communist party v. sacb, 351 u.s. 115 (1956) communist party v. subserve activities control board no. 48 argued november 17, 1955 decided april 30, 1956 351 u.s. 115 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit syllabus an order of the subversive activities control board that petitioner register with the attorney general as a "communist action" organization, as required by the subversive activities control act of 1950, was appealed by petitioner to the court of appeals for the district of columbia. while the appeal was pending, petitioner filed a motion for leave to adduce additional evidence pursuant to 14(a) of the act, alleging, inter alia, that evidence which became available to petitioner subsequent to the administrative proceeding would establish that the testimony of three of the attorney general's witnesses on which the board relied was perjurious. the government did not deny petitioner's allegations. the court of appeals denied the motion, upheld the constitutionality of the act, and affirmed the board's order. both the government and the court of appeals deemed the innocent testimony sufficient to sustain the board's conclusion. held: the court of appeals erred in refusing to return the case to the board for consideration of the new evidence proffered by petitioner's motion and affidavit. pp. 351 u. s. 116 -125. (a) the case must be decided on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 1956 (FN)

Parr Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-11-1956

parr v. united states - 351 u.s. 513 (1956) u.s. supreme court parr v. united states, 351 u.s. 513 (1956) parr v. united states argued march 28, 1956 decided june 11, 1956 * 351 u.s. 513 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit syllabus 1. petitioner was indicted in one division of the federal district court for the southern district of texas, and that court granted his motion to transfer the case to another division on the ground that local prejudice would prevent a fair trial in the division where he was indicted. subsequently, the government obtained a new indictment in another district for the same offenses and moved in the first court for dismissal of the first indictment. this motion was granted, and petitioner appealed. held: the court of appeals was without jurisdiction, because there was no final judgment. pp. 351 u. s. 514 -521. (a) considering the first indictment alone, an appeal from its dismissal will not lie, because petitioner has not been aggrieved, even though he is left open to further prosecution. pp. 351 u. s. 516 -517. (b) viewing the two indictments together as parts of a single prosecution, dismissal of the first indictment was not a final order, but only an interlocutory step in petitioner's prosecution. pp. 351 u. s. 518 -519. (c) dismissal of the first indictment does not come within the exceptions to the rule of "finality," because lack of an appeal at this stage will not deny effective review of his claim that he was .....

Tag this Judgment!


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