Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1955 Page 10 of about 277 results (0.018 seconds)

Feb 07 1955 (HC)

Abdul Qadeer Vs. Municipal Board, Moradabad and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-07-1955

Reported in : AIR1955All414

agarwala, j. 1. this is an appeal from an order refusing to grant an injunction. sri abdul qadeer is at present the president of the municipal board, moradabad. a motion of no-confidence is going to be moved against him apparently upon a requisition by a majority of the members of the municipal board and in pursuance of that motion certain proceedings as required by the municipalities act are being taken. the appellant filed a suit in the court of the civil judge, moradabad for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the defendant who are the municipal board, moradabad, through the vice-president, the members of the board, the district magistrate of moradabad and the additional sessions judge of moradabad from holding any meeting on 8-2-1955. on the date on which the plaint was filed an application for the issue of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from moving a no-confidence motion against him and holding the meeting on the 8th february was made. this application has been rejected & the present appeal is against that order. 2. the only ground stated in the application for the issue of a temporary injunction was that some of the members had been coerced into signing the no-confidence motion and the resolution submitted was no resolution in the eye of law. 3. there are two essential considerations which should weigh with the court in deciding applications like this. one is that a prima facie case should have been satisfactorily made out and the second .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 1955 (HC)

Mohammed Khan Vs. Ramnarayan Misra and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Aug-01-1955

Reported in : AIR1956Ori156

panigrahi, c.j.1. this appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration of their sole right to collect, remove, and sell kendu leaves from inside the borders of the garloisingh zamindarl in sambalpur district, and for recovery of a sum of rs. 88200/- from the defendants for 'wrongful collection and removal' of the same during the years 1944 to 1946.the plaintiffs also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their right to collect kendu leaves in future, for the period covered by the contract entered into between the plaintiffs and the deceased zamindar, madan mohan singh. defendant 1 is a lessee from defendant 2 who is the present zamindar of garloisingh. the father of defendant 2 executed a document, ex. 19 dated 29-1-1938, in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 permitting them to collect and remove kendu leaves within the ambits of his zamindari for a period of 15 years commencing from 1944.the plaintiffs agreed to pay an annual royalty of es. 6,000/- for the privilege granted by the zamindar. on the same date and simultaneously with the document described as a lease the previous zamindar executed a bond for rs. 10,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs stipulating that the royalty payable by the plaintiffs under the lease should be adjusted towards interest accruing due under the debt bond if the debt bond remained undischarged till then.within a few months after the execution of the two deeds marked as exs. 19 and 18 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1955 (HC)

Harkishan Dass Narshing Dass Chawla Vs. Kirpal Shah

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-15-1955

Reported in : AIR1955P& H181

kapur, j.1. this is a decree-holder's appeal against an order passed by the executing court dated 2-2-1954 dismissing the application of the decree-holder for execution on the ground that it is barred by time.2. cross-suits were pending in the court of a subordinate judge in gujrauwala. on 10-10-1945 they were referred to arbitration and an award was made in favour of harkishan das, the date of which is not quite clear. objections against the award were dismissed on 19-11-1946 and a decree was passed in accordance with the award on 30-11-1946, the amount being rs. 7,000/-. on 14-1-1947 an appeal was filed in the lahore high court against the order refusing to set aside the award and this appeal was dismissed for default on 6-2-1948 on the ground that the parties were not present and that notices in accordance with the rules of the high court had been issued to the parties.3. the decree-holder made an application for execution on 14-8-1950 in a court at delhi. the judgment-debtor pleaded that the application was barred by time, and there were other pleas also which are not necessary for the purposes of this appeal. the learned judge held that the application was barred by time.in appeal reliance was placed on article 182(2) of the limitation act and it was submitted that as an appeal had been brought the date from which the time for execution begins to run is 6-2-1948.the relevant portion of this article when quoted runs as under:'182. for the three 1. the date of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 1955 (HC)

T. Velu Servai Vs. Srinivasa Iyengar and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-11-1955

Reported in : (1956)2MLJ60

ramaswami gounder, j.1. the plaintiff, who is the present appellant, filed the suit to recover possession of a house-property in madurai town. the site on which the house is constructed together with adjacent sites, which formed a block of vacant site., originally belonged to vyasarayamatam of mysore. one sundararajachar was the agent or karwar under the matathipathis from 1872 till his death in 1904. he was able to induce the then matathipathi to grant him in perpetuity a lease of the said property at a nominial rent of rs. 20 per annum on 14th february, 1885. thereafter he sold the site to various persons, the suit site to one srinivasa ayyangar for a sum of rs. 88 under a registered sale-deed, dated 6th august, 1897. some time later, srinivasa ayyangar died issueless, leaving only his widow, lakshmi ammal. she is said to have put up the present house on the suit site and was in. enjoyment thereof till her death in 1937. treating this house as her absolute property, she executed a will, exhibit a-11, in favour of her sister, kothai ammal. the latter died in 1945, leaving an adopted son, sundararaja ayyangar, from, whom the plaintiff purchased the suit property under exhibit a-6, dated 7th march, 1948, for rs. 5,000. it will therefore be seen that the plaintiff claims title through srinivasa ayyangar's widow, lakshmi ammal. but he had three hurdles to get over : (1) that his vendor, sundararaja ayyangar, should be proved to be the adopted son of kothai ammal and her husband, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 1955 (FN)

Lucy Vs. Adams

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Oct-10-1955

lucy v. adams - 350 u.s. 1 (1955) u.s. supreme court lucy v. adams, 350 u.s. 1 (1955) lucy v. adams no. 294, misc. decided october 10, 1955 350 u.s. 1 application to vacate order granting stay of injunction pending appeal and to reinstate i njunction pending appeal syllabus the injunction which the district court issued in this case, but suspended pending appeal to the court of appeals, is reinstated to the extent that it enjoins and restrains the respondent and others designated from denying these petitioners, solely on account of their race or color, the right to enroll in the university of alabama and pursue courses of study there. 134 f.supp. 235, injunction reinstated in part. per curiam. petitioners, autherine j. lucy and polly anne myers, citizens of alabama, have been seeking admission to the university of alabama since september, 1952. respondent william f. adams is dean of admissions of the university. after hearings, united states district judge grooms of the northern district of alabama found that petitioners had been denied admission to the university "solely on account of their race and color." holding this page 350 u. s. 2 denied petitioners equal protection of state laws, the court permanently enjoined respondent adams, his agent, employees and other acting in concert with respondent "from denying the plaintiffs and others similarly situated the right to enroll in the university of alabama and pursue courses of study thereat, solely on account of their race .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1955 (HC)

Laxmidas Ranchhoddas and ors. Vs. Savitabai Hargovindas Shah

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-31-1955

Reported in : AIR1956Bom54; (1955)57BOMLR988; ILR1955Bom955

chagla, c.j. 1. this appeal raises a rather important question as to the authority of counsel to enter into a compromise on behalf of his client. the plaintiffs filed a suit, in which the compromise is alleged to have been arrived at, to eject the defendant who they alleged was a licensee.the suit appeared as a short cause before coyajee, j. this was on 22-6-1954. before the suit reached hearing terms of settlement, were discussed between the defendant & her husband and the solicitors on the two sides, and it was agreed that the suit should be placed at the bottom of the list so that the consent terms may be handed in.at 4 p. m. the suit reached hearing and counsel for the plaintiffs, mr. laud, and counsel for the defendant. mr. bhat, applied to the court that the suit should be placed at the bottom of the list as negotiations were going on. the learned judge was not prepared to place the suit at the bottom of the list and asked the parties to discuss the matter in court.thereupon the plaintiffs and the defendant and her husband & the attorneys discussed the matter further in the corridor of the court & the solicitors of the plaintiffs informed mr. laud as to what the consent terms were which had been arrived at, and the consent terms were that time was to be given to the defendant to vacate upto 31-3-1955,that the compensation payable up to the end of may, 1954, was rs. 1,200 and the same was payable by monthly instalments, and future -compensation was to be payable at the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1955 (HC)

State Vs. Indraj

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-12-1955

Reported in : AIR1957Raj234; 1957CriLJ907

wanchoo, c.j.1. this is an appeal by the state against the acquittal of indraj by a magistrate of the first class of an offence under section 454 of the i. p. c.2. the prosecution case was briefly this. shivkaran and his family lived in nangal bari. he and members of his family had gone out to their fields on the morning of 29-9-1952 and had shut up the house. when they returned in the evening, they found, that the floor of the house was open and that the lock of an almirah inside the house had been broken. the almirah contained rs. 350/- in currency notes and a tin-box containing gold and silver ornaments. the money as well as the box of ornaments were found missing. it was also stated in the first report that the house of the accused indraj was next door and that the accused knew that the money and ornaments were in that almirah. suspicion was expressed against indraj on the further ground that he was a gambler. it was also explained that there was delay in the report as they were trying all along to find out about the theft.3. the report of the incident was made in the thana on 3-10-1952. the police arrived on the scene on the 4th oct. and it is said that a list of stolen property was prepared on that day. the list is ex. p. 5. this list was prepared as there was not a complete list of the stolen property in the first report where only a few ornaments were mentioned and it was stated that the details would be given by shivkaran and his wife. the case for the prosecution .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 1955 (TRI)

international Radio Co. Vs. the State of Bombay

Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-01-1955

Reported in : 19567STC210Tribunal

1. the applicants deal in radios, their spare parts, gramophones, refrigerators and what have been variously described as x-ray machines, apparatus for taking x-ray photographs, x-ray equipments and x-ray apparatus by the authorities below. the point in dispute in this application concerns the last mentioned class of articles. the applicants sold 11 such articles for a total sum of rs. 1,17,238-12-0 between 29th april, 1952, and 25th october, 1952. they have been held by the authorities below to be liable to the special tax under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the bombay sales tax act of 1946 and entry no. 4 in schedule i to the act. the material part of sub-section (1) of section 6 reads as follows :- the tax payable by a dealer under this act shall consist of (b) a special tax at the rate of one anna in the rupee levied on his taxable turnover in respect of sales or supplies of goods specified in schedule i.if the sales in question are not covered by entry no. 4 in schedule i, they would be liable to only the general tax, i.e., to one half of an anna in the rupee on the taxable turnover. entry no. 4 in schedule i reads thus :- cinematographic, photographic and other cameras, projectors and enlargers; lenses and other parts of and accessories to such cameras, projectors and enlargers and films, plates, paper and cloth required for use therewith.in march, 1951, the government of bombay issued a book called the bombay sales tax hand book for the use of dealers .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 1955 (FN)

Arizona Vs. California

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-12-1955

arizona v. california - 350 u.s. 114 (1955) u.s. supreme court arizona v. california, 350 u.s. 114 (1955) 350 u.s. 114 arizona v. california et al. on exceptions to the report of the special master. no. 10, original. argued december 8, 1955. decided december 12, 1955. ruling on motion of california to join other states as parties to this action. p. 115. george i. haight served as special master by appointment of the court, 347 u.s. 986 , and filed the report on which this ruling was made. after his death, simon h. rifkind was appointed special master, 350 u.s. 812. john p. frank and ernest w. mcfarland argued the cause for the state of arizona, complainant. on the brief were robert morrison, attorney general, john h. moeur, mr. frank, john geoffrey will, burr sutter, perry ling and theodore kiendl. northcutt ely, assistant attorney general of california, argued the cause for defendants. on the brief were edmund g. brown, attorney general, mr. ely, robert l. mccarty, prentiss moore and gilbert f. nelson, assistant attorneys general, and charles e. corker, howard i. friedman, burton j. gindler, james b. mckenney, john r. alexander and george brody, deputy attorneys general, for the state of california, francis e. jenney for the palo verde irrigation district, harry w. horton and r. l. knox, jr. for the imperial irrigation district, earl redwine for the coachella valley county water district. james h. howard, charles c. cooper, jr., donald m. keith, alan patten and frank p. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 1955 (FN)

United States Ex Rel. Toth Vs. Quarles

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Nov-07-1955

united states ex rel. toth v. quarles - 350 u.s. 11 (1955) u.s. supreme court united states ex rel. toth v. quarles, 350 u.s. 11 (1955) united states ex rel. toth v. quarles no. 3 argued february 8-9, 1955 restored to docket for reargument june 6, 1955 reargued october 13, 1955 decided november 7, 1955 350 u.s. 11 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit syllabus five months after he had been honorably discharged from the united states air force and had returned to his home and was privately employed, an ex-serviceman was arrested by military authorities on charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder while he was an airman in korea. when arrested, he had no relationship of any kind with the military. under authority of art. 3(a) of the uniform code of military justice, he was taken to korea to stand trial before a court-martial. held: he could not constitutionally be subjected to trial by court-martial. pp. 350 u. s. 13 -23. 1. the act cannot be sustained as an appropriate exercise of the constitutional power of congress "to raise and support armies," "to declare war," or to punish "offences against the law of nations." pp. 350 u. s. 13 -14. 2. this assertion of military authority over civilians cannot rest on the president's power as commander-in-chief, nor on any theory of martial law. p. 350 u. s. 14 . 3. the fifth amendment does not grant court-martial power to congress; it merely makes clear that there need be no .....

Tag this Judgment!


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