Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1956 Page 10 of about 332 results (0.020 seconds)

Feb 28 1956 (HC)

J.K. Devaiya Vs. State of Coorg

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-28-1956

Reported in : 1956CriLJ904

orderpadmanabhiah, j.1. this is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-accused against the judgment of the learned sessions judge, mercara, in criminal appeal no. 12/1953. confirming that of the learned munsiff and) first class magistrate, mercara, in c. c. no. 295/1954, convicting him of an offence under section 243, i.p.c. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous- imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of rs. 500/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.2. the facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows:3. the accused was charge-sheeted for an offence under section 243,1.p.c. in the court of the learned munsiff and first class magistrate, mercara, and the case for the prosecution was that on 23-11-53 the accused was found in fraudulent possession of four counterfeit india government rupee coins of 1947 pattern having known at the time he became possessed of them that they were counterfeit and that he thereby committed an offence punishable under section 243, i.p.c.the accused pleaded not guilty to a charge framed under the above section but the learned magistrate ultimately convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. as against that judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned sessions judge, mercara, who confirmed the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed on him by the trial court. as against that decision, this revision petition is filed'.4. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1956 (HC)

Chintamoni Padhan and ors. Vs. Paika Samal and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Feb-17-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Ori136

panigrahi, c.j.1. the litigation giving rise to this appeal has had a chequered career. the plaintiffs own 16.67 acres of land recorded in khata no. 32 of mouza santhasara within the state of dhenkanal. these lands were being enjoyed in four separate shares plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 having one share each and the father of plaintiffs 4 and 5 being the other cosharer.sometime prior to 1930 plaintiff 1 leased out ft small portion of the holding, measuring 1.28 acres, for cultivation on bhag. the tahsildar of the state recommended the resumption of the entire holding on the ground that the executant had mortgaged the lands without the authority of the state, and on 26-1-1931 the ruler of dhenkanal ordered resumption of the entire holding. thereafter the lands were re-settled, on 21-9-1932, with the present defendant 2 and the father of the present defendants 3, 4 and an order of the ruler, dated 21-11-1932 their names were mutated and pattas were granted in due course. but the plaintiffs did not surrender possession to the new tenants. they averred that they were still in possession of the homestead lands recorded in the aforesaid khata though the defendants had taken forcible possession of the cultivated lands in january 1937. the plaintiffs complained to the chief minister of the state who by an order dated 7-12-1944, directed them to file a suit in the civil court and establish their title to the suit lands.the present suit was accordingly filed on 23-5-1945 for a declaration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 1956 (HC)

Sadhu Singh Vs. Chanda Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-16-1956

Reported in : AIR1957P& H108

bishan narain, j. 1. this second appeal has been filed by subedar major sadhu singn against the decision of the additional district judge, amrit-sar, dismissing his appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial court to the effect that the possession of the property in dispute should be given to the plaintiffs. 2. the land in dispute at one time belonged to jagat singh father of subedar sadhu singh. on 27th june, 1895, he mortgaged his jand with dhanna singh for rs. 900/-. then on 16th november, 1900 he mortgaged it again with dhanna singh for rs. 1600/-. the third mortgage was effected by him on 11th december, 1905, in favour of dhanna singh for rs. 2,000/- and finally the fourth mortgage was effected on 3rd june, 1914, for rs. 3,850/-. this time the mortgage was by jagat singh in favour of pal singh, tehl singh and mehl singh sons of dhanna singh. on 6th august, 1943 sadhu singh applied for restitution of the mortgaged land in the court of the special collector, lahore, under the provisions of the punjab restitution of mortgaged lands act, 1938 (punjab act no. iv of 1938). apparently this application was contested on behalf of the mortgagees and on 6th march, 1945, the collector ordered redemption of the mortgages on payment of rs. 77/-odd. the mortgagees filed an appeal in the court of the commissioner at lahore but its fate is not known in view of the partition of the country during the pendency of that appeal. the village in which the land in dispute is situate was a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 1956 (FN)

Sears, Roebuck and Co. Vs. Mackey

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-11-1956

sears, roebuck & co. v. mackey - 351 u.s. 427 (1956) u.s. supreme court sears, roebuck & co. v. mackey, 351 u.s. 427 (1956) sears, roebuck & co. v. mackey no. 34 argued february 28, 1956 decided june 11, 1956 351 u.s. 427 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit syllabus in a multiple claims action, the federal district court expressly directed that judgment be entered for the defendant on two, but less than all, of the claims presented. the court also expressly determined that there was no just reason for delay in making the entry. on appeal from that judgment, the court of appeals upheld its jurisdiction and denied a motion to dismiss, relying upon 28 u.s.c. 1291 and rule 54(b) of the federal rules of civil procedure, as amended in 1946. held: the appellate jurisdiction of the court of appeals is sustained, and its judgment denying the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction is affirmed. pp. 351 u. s. 428 -438. (a) rule 54(b), as amended, does not relax the finality required of each decision, as an individual claim, to render it appealable, but does provide a practical means of permitting an appeal to be taken from one or more final decisions on individual claims, in multiple claims actions, without waiting for final decisions to be rendered on all the claims in the case. pp. 351 u. s. 434 -435. (b) the application of the amended rule is limited expressly to multiple claims actions in which "one or more but less than .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1956 (FN)

United Gas Pipe Line Co. Vs. Mobile Gas Svc. Corp.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-27-1956

united gas pipe line co. v. mobile gas svc. corp. - 350 u.s. 332 (1956) u.s. supreme court united gas pipe line co. v. mobile gas svc. corp., 350 u.s. 332 (1956) united gas pipe line co. v. mobile gas service corp. argued november 7, 1955 decided february 27, 1956 * 350 u.s. 332 on certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit syllabus under the natural gas act, a regulated natural gas company furnishing gas to a distributing company under a long-term contract filed with the federal power commission may not, without the consent of the distributing company, change the rate specified in the contract simply by filing a new rate schedule with the commission under 4(d) of the act. pp. 350 u. s. 333 -347. (a) unlike the interstate commerce act, which requires uniform rates, the natural gas act expressly recognizes that rates to particular customers may be set initially by individual contracts filed with the commission. pp. 350 u. s. 338 -339. (b) authority for natural gas companies to change their contract rates unilaterally is not conferred by 4(d) of the act, which provides that "no change shall be made by any natural gas company in any such [filed] rate . . . or contract . . . except after thirty days' notice to the commission," given by filing new schedules showing the changes and the time they are to go into effect. pp. 350 u. s. 339 -340. (c) the act neither grants nor defines the initial rate-setting powers of natural gas companies; it merely .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 1956 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. RamnaraIn Sons Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-02-1956

Reported in : [1957]31ITR17(Bom)

chagla, c.j.1. on the 1st of october, 1946, the assessee company acquired the managing agency of the dawn mills co., ltd. prior to this, messrs. sassoon j. david and co. ltd. were the managing agents. part of the agreement to transfer the managing agency was that the assessee company had to purchase from messrs. sassoon j. david and co. ltd., 2,507 shares of the mills for a total consideration of rs. 50,00,000. the market price of these shares at the relevant date was rs. 1,610 per share. fifteen hundred and seven of these shares were transferred to the company at the price of rs. 2,321-8-0 and the balance of 1,000 were transferred to the directors at rs. 1,500 per share. two months after this transaction, the assessee company sold 400 shares, and the result of this transaction was that they suffered a loss of rs. 1,78,438. this loss was claimed by the company as a revenue loss and this claim was allowed by the tribunal and the commissioner has come on this reference. 2. now, in the first place, let us recite the facts which are either admitted or have been found by the tribunal. the assessee company was a dealer in shares and also did the business of acquiring managing agencies. as a matter of fact, it had already acquired two managing agencies one of bradbury mills on the 7th of april, 1934, and of the phoenix mills was to acquire the managing agency and, to use the language of the income-tax officer which the tribunal has adopted in the statement of the case, 'the purchase .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1956 (HC)

Mst. Sudehaiya Kumar and anr. Vs. Ram Dass Pandey and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-05-1956

Reported in : AIR1957All270

desai, j.1. this is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment of a civil judge allowing an appeal and decreeing the suit of ram dass plaintiff.2. the property in dispute admittedly belonged to the last male owner jangi who died on 10-6-1901, leaving his widow mst. deobarta, his sister mst. sudami and his mother mst. bageshra. on his death, mst. deotoarta and mst. bageshra obtained mutation in their favour in respect of the property left by jangi. mst. bageshra died in 1911, and on her death, the name of mst. sudami was added. in 1912 a suit-was brought by the sons of matadin for possession and, in the alternative, for a declaration that they were entitled to the property after the deaths of mst. deobarta and mst. sudami. matadin was jangi's grand-father's brother. his sons, who filed the suit, were dudh nath proforma defendant respondent, sripat and was decreed only for the alternative relief. subsequently mst. sudami died and on 6-5-1932 mst. deobarta made a gift of a substantial portion of the property in favour of her husband ram sewak defendant-appellant no. 2. thereupon suit no. 155 of 1933 was instituted by dudh nath against mst. deobarta and ram sewak. ram das plaintiff-respondent first cousin of dudh nath was at that time a minor living jointly with, and under the guardianship of, dudh nath. dudh nath sought the relief of cancellation of the gift deed on behalf of himself and ram das. the suit was contested by mst. deobarta and ram sewak on various .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 1956 (HC)

V. Sundaram Iyer Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Raman ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-31-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Mad634

1. these writ petitions are for the issue of writs of prohibition restraining the deputy registrar of co-operative societies from proceeding with certain plaints filed before him under section 51 of the co-operative societies act, and they raise for consideration mainly the proper construction of certain sections of that enactment to which we shall advert presently. these petitions fall into two major divisions and each relates to two co-operative societies which have now been superseded and whose management has now been vested in special officers appointed by the registrar of co-operative societies. w.p. nos. 853, 914, 915 and 920 of 1955 arise out of claims made on behalf of the sivaganga co-operative urban bank, ltd., while w.p. nos. 258 to 263 of 1955 relate to claims preferred on account of the karaikudi co-operative stores, ltd.2. it will be necessary to set out in brief outline the facts and the allegations on the basis of which claims have been made against the petitioners in the several writ petitions, who are ex-directors of these societies, in order to appreciate the point raised on their behalf.3. w.p. no. 853 of 1955 and 920 of 1955 seek the issue of writs of prohibition restraining the deputy registrars of co-operative societies, who have been impleaded as the first respondent, from proceeding with the enquiry in a.r.c. no. 6239 of 1953-54 filed by the special officer appointed to manage the affairs of the sivaganga co-operative urban bank, ltd., w.p. no. 853 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 1956 (FN)

Reid Vs. Covert

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-11-1956

reid v. covert - 354 u.s. 1 (1956) u.s. supreme court reid v. covert, 354 u.s. 1 (1957) reid v. covert no. 701, october term, 1955 argued may 3, 1956 decided june 11, 1956 rehearing granted november 5, 1956 reargued february 27, 1957 decided june 10, 1957 354 u.s. 1 on rehearing * syllabus article 2(11) of the uniform code of military justice, providing for the trial by court-martial of "all persons . . . accompanying the armed forces" of the united states in foreign countries, cannot constitutionally be applied, in capital cases, to the trial of civilian dependents accompanying members of the armed forces overseas in time of peace. kinsella v. krueger, 351 u. s. 470 , and reid v. covert, 351 u. s. 487 , withdrawn. pp. 354 u. s. 3 -78. judgment below in no. 701, october term, 1955, affirmed. 137 f.supp. 806, reversed and remanded. mr. justice black, in an opinion joined by the chief justice, mr. justice douglas and mr. justice brennan, concluded that: 1. when the united states acts against its citizens abroad, it can do so only in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the constitution, including art. iii, 2, and the fifth and sixth amendments. pp. 354 u. s. 5 -14. page 354 u. s. 2 2. insofar as art. 2(11) of the uniform code of military justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the united states .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 04 1956 (FN)

Durley Vs. Mayo

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-04-1956

durley v. mayo - 351 u.s. 277 (1956) u.s. supreme court durley v. mayo, 351 u.s. 277 (1956) durley v. mayo no. 489 argued april 2, 1956 decided june 4, 1956 351 u.s. 277 certiorari to the supreme court of florida syllabus upon reviewing the decision of the supreme court of florida denying, without opinion, petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he claimed, inter alia, that his state conviction and imprisonment for stealing cattle violated the federal constitution, it appeared that the judgment of that court might have rested on one or both of two adequate state grounds. held: the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. pp. 351 u. s. 278 -285. (a) where the highest court of a state delivers no opinion and it appears that its judgment might have rested on a nonfederal ground, this court will not take jurisdiction to review the judgment. stembridge v. georgia, 343 u. s. 541 . pp. 351 u. s. 281 -282. (b) the supreme court of florida might have rested its denial of the petition here involved on either or both of the following grounds: (1) that the several federal issues presented by it had been raised previously within the meaning of fla.stat.ann., 1943, 79.10, and therefore could not be raised again under state practice; (2) that they could have been raised in the prior proceedings and, accordingly, were not available as a matter of state law under florida decisions. pp. 351 u. s. 282 -284. (c) there is nothing in the order of the supreme court of .....

Tag this Judgment!

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