Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1955 Page 8 of about 277 results (0.047 seconds)

Aug 22 1955 (HC)

Kuppammal Vs. Mu. Ve. Pethanna Chetty

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-22-1955

Reported in : AIR1956Mad250; (1956)1MLJ52

..... that the suit pronote was executed nominally and that at a settlement effected between the parties the pronote was discharged and the stamp was torn in the presence of the mediators, but was left with the defendant in connection with the settlement of the disputes with a third party. one of the issues framed in the suit was whether the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 08 1955 (HC)

Palani Goundan and anr. Vs. Vanjiakkal and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-08-1955

Reported in : (1956)1MLJ498

..... annum. this family dispute was settled by an arrangement dated 29th june, 1942 (exhibit a-1). the first defendant who is related to the parties, on the intervention of the mediators, was made the de facto guardian of this minor chinnan and he was entrusted with this property for being managed by him. he undertook that the maintenance of the minor .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 1955 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta Vs. Malchand Surana, ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-24-1955

Reported in : AIR1956Cal537,[1955]28ITR684(Cal)

..... the hand of another person, or that if another person does sign it on the addressee's behalf, the presumption is that it never was delivered to the addressee himself mediately or immediately. for instance, if a servant in the addressee's house saw a notice handed in by the postman carried to the addressee and handed to him, that servant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 1955 (FN)

Williams Vs. Georgia

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-06-1955

williams v. georgia - 349 u.s. 375 (1955) u.s. supreme court williams v. georgia, 349 u.s. 375 (1955) williams v. georgia no. 412 argued april 18, 1955 decided june 6, 1955 349 u.s. 375 certiorari to the supreme court of georgia. syllabus petitioner is a negro who was convicted by an all-white jury in a georgia state court for murdering a white man and was sentenced to death. after his conviction had been affirmed by the state supreme court, he filed in the trial court an extraordinary motion for a new trial, claiming for the first time that his conviction was invalid because of unconstitutional discrimination against negroes in the selection of the jury panel from which the jury which convicted him had been drawn. he alleged that the method of selecting the jury panel was the same as that which was condemned in avery v. georgia, 345 u. s. 559 , but dismissal of his motion was sustained by the state supreme court on the ground that, under georgia law, objection to a jury panel can be made only at the time when the panel is "put upon" the defendant and before trial begins, and that petitioner had not shown sufficient excuse for his failure to object at that time. in oral argument before this court, the state conceded that, as a matter of substantive law, petitioner had been deprived of his constitutional rights. held: 1. where a state allows questions of this sort to be raised at a late stage and be determined by its courts as a matter of discretion, this court is not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 1955 (HC)

Biswanath Dey Vs. Kishori M. Pal

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-27-1955

Reported in : AIR1956Cal1

g.k. mitter, j.1. this is an application for rest-oration of a suit which was heard in part' on 5-4-1955 and disposed of on the day following.2. the suit was one -for recovery of money lent and advanced, for interest and costs. on 6-4-1955, the suit was taken up; the plaintiff was examined-in-chief and was being cross-examined by counsel for the defendant when the court rose for the day and the matter had to be adjourned till the next day. after the disposal of some interlocutory matters the suit was called on again on the 6th april at about 11 a.m. or shortly thereafter.mr. de, learned counsel for the plaintiff,made a statement to court to the effect that theplaintiff was not present to be cross-examinedfurther. there is some dispute as to the further statement made by him. it is stated in the affidavit in opposition of kishori mohan pal, the defendant, that mr. de had stated that he did not want to proceed with the suit whereas in his affidavit-in-reply the plaintiff deposes to the effect that mr. de had stated that the suit could not possibly go on.this latter statement is described as being based on information received by the plaintiff from his solicitor and believed to be true. 1 myself have no definite recollection as to the exact words used by learned counsel except that he had-mentioned the absence of the plaintiff and that i had passed an order dismissing the suit with costs.3. the plaintiff's case for restoration of the suit is that 'he had gone, to the office, of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1955 (FN)

Michel Vs. Louisiana

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-05-1955

michel v. louisiana - 350 u.s. 91 (1955) u.s. supreme court michel v. louisiana, 350 u.s. 91 (1955) michel v. louisiana argued november 9, 1955 decided december 5, 1955 * 350 u.s. 91 certiorari to the supreme court of louisiana syllabus 1. louisiana law requires that objections to a grand jury be raised before the expiration of the third judicial day following the end of the grand jury's term or before trial, whichever is earlier. after expiration of the time allowed, these three negro petitioners moved to quash their indictments on the ground that there was systematic exclusion of negroes from the grand juries which indicted them. their motions were denied, and each was convicted of a capital offense. held: in the circumstances of these cases, application of the rule to these petitioners did not violate the fourteenth amendment. pp. 350 u. s. 92 -102. 2. michel was indicted on february 19 and presented for arraignment on february 23. he appeared without counsel, and arraignment was continued for one week. the record shows that counsel was appointed for him on march 2, the date the grand jury term expired. counsel contended that he did not consider himself appointed until march 5, when he received written notice from the court. the motion to quash, not filed until march 9, was denied as being out of time. held: the finding of the lower courts that counsel was appointed march 2 is sustained. since the appointed counsel, a lawyer experienced in state criminal practice, had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 1955 (FN)

United States Vs. International Boxing Club

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-31-1955

united states v. international boxing club - 348 u.s. 236 (1955) u.s. supreme court united states v. international boxing club, 348 u.s. 236 (1955) united states v. international boxing club of new york, inc. no. 53 argued november 10, 1954 decided january 31, 1955 348 u.s. 236 appeal from the united states district court for the southern district of new york syllabus in a civil antitrust action brought by the government to restrain alleged violations of 1 and 2 of the sherman act, the complaint alleged, inter alia, that the defendants are engaged in the business of promoting professional championship boxing contests on a multistate basis and selling rights to televise, broadcast, and film such contests for interstate transmission; that their receipts from the sale of television, radio, and motion picture rights represent over 25% of their total revenue, and, in some instances, exceed the revenue from the sale of admission tickets; and that the defendants have restrained and monopolized trade and commerce through a conspiracy to exclude competition in their line of business. held: the complaint states a cause of action, and the government is entitled to an opportunity to prove its allegations. pp. 348 u. s. 237 -245. (a) as described in the complaint, defendants' business of promoting professional championship boxing contests on a multistate basis and selling rights to televise, broadcast, and film such contests for interstate transmission constitutes "trade or commerce .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 1955 (HC)

Mahabir Chandra Gelada Vs. Sohanlal Boid

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-04-1955

Reported in : AIR1955Cal476

orderp.b. mukharji, j.1. this is an application to set aside an ex parte order of dismissal made on 24-2-1955. the application is made by the plaintiff. the suit appeared on the peremptory list for hearing on 24-2-1955. no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. it is now said in para 16 of the petition used in support of the notice of motion and in explanation of the non-appearance that the learned counsel engaged on behalf of the plaintiff was busy in another court actually cross-examining a witness at the time when this suit was called on for hearing. the defendant's counsel was present on that date, and it is alleged that he prayed for the dismissal of the suit. the suit was dismissed with costs to the defendant and certified for two counsel.2. it is unfortunate that only one counsel was engaged for the plaintiff in this case although the claim in this suit is for about rs. 30,000/-. an attorney who briefs one counsel for the hearing of a suit placed on the interlocutory court which is not able to reach suits every day due to interlocutory applications, takes thereby a big risk in these matters, and it is necessary for this court to express its opinion that on that ground alone of his counsel being busy elsewhere, it cannot always accommodate attorneys specially when it is a matter which is certified as fit for the employment of two counsel.3. the merits of the case do justify in my view the setting aside of the order of dismissal on certain terms and conditions as to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1955 (FN)

Reece Vs. Georgia

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-05-1955

reece v. georgia - 350 u.s. 85 (1955) u.s. supreme court reece v. georgia, 350 u.s. 85 (1955) reece v. georgia no. 112 argued november 9, 1955 decided december 5, 1955 350 u.s. 85 certiorari to the supreme court of georgia syllabus 1. georgia law requires that objections of a defendant to the composition of a grand jury be raised before indictment. petitioner, a negro of low mentality, was indicted and convicted of a capital offense, but was not provided with counsel until the day after he was indicted. before his arraignment, petitioner moved to quash the indictment on the ground that negroes had been systematically excluded from service on the grand jury. this motion was denied on the ground that it was made too late. held: failure to consider the motion to quash on its merits was a denial of due process of law, and violated the fourteenth amendment. pp. 350 u. s. 87 -90. (a) the indictment of a defendant by a grand jury from which members of his race have been systematically excluded is a denial of his right to equal protection of the laws. p. 350 u. s. 87 . (b) where no opportunity to challenge the grand jury selection has been afforded a defendant, his right may be asserted by a plea in abatement or a motion to quash before arraignment. p. 350 u. s. 87 . (c) assignment of counsel in a state prosecution at such time and under such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid in the preparation and trial of a capital case is a denial of due process of law. pp. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 1955 (FN)

Lawlor Vs. National Screen Service Corp.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-06-1955

lawlor v. national screen service corp. - 349 u.s. 322 (1955) u.s. supreme court lawlor v. national screen service corp., 349 u.s. 322 (1955) lawlor v. national screen service corp. no. 163 argued february 9-10, 1955 decided june 6, 1955 349 u.s. 322 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit syllabus in 1942, alleging that the defendants had conspired to establish a monopoly in the distribution of motion picture advertising material, petitioners and others brought an antitrust action for treble damages and injunctive relief against national screen and three motion picture producers who had granted exclusive licenses to national screen to manufacture and lease such material. in 1943, pursuant to a settlement made before trial and without any findings of fact or law having been made, that action was dismissed "with prejudice," and sublicenses were granted by national screen to the plaintiffs. in 1949, petitioners brought a similar action against the same defendants, plus five additional motion picture producers, alleging that settlement of the 1942 suit was merely a device used to perpetuate the conspiracy and monopoly, that the five additional producers had since joined the conspiracy, and that national screen had deliberately made slow and erratic deliveries under the sublicense in an effort to destroy petitioners' business and had used tie-in sales and other means of exploiting its monopoly power. petitioners sought damages for only those .....

Tag this Judgment!


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