Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: supreme court of india Year: 1999 Page 6 of about 78 results (0.110 seconds)

Mar 09 1999 (SC)

Shri Punnu Ram and Others Vs. Shri Chiranji Lal Gupta (Dead) by L.Rs. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-09-1999

Reported in : AIR1999SC1094; JT1999(2)SC87; 1999(1)SCALE675; (1999)3SCC273; [1999]1SCR940

m.b. shah, j.1. in these appeals, only question involved is whether factors laid down in section 19(4) of the slum areas (improvement and clearance) act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') are to be read as cumulatively or alternatively. the full bench of the delhi high court has interpreted the aforesaid sub-section (4) and has arrived at the conclusion that the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) & (b) of section 19(4) of act were conditions in the alternative and did not have to be read cumulatively. the court also, inter alia, held as under :that the principle objective of the act being clearance of slums and prevention and creation of slums, if in a given case the demolition or re-erection or re construction of a building or a set of buildings was necessary in the interest of slum clearance or improvement, the poverty of the tenant even if established would not debar the competent authority from granting permission.2. the competent authority in considering the application for grant of permission moved by a landlord has to look at the matter from the point of view of the tenant and not from the point of view of the landlord, ever keeping in mind the objectives sought to be achieved by the act.2. the aforesaid order is under challenge before this court.for appreciating the contentions raised by the appellant, it would be necessary to refer to section 19 of the act which is as under :notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 1999 (SC)

J. Jayalalitha Vs. U.O.i. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-14-1999

Reported in : AIR1999SC1912; 1999CriLJ2859; (2000)3GLR2437; JT1999(3)SC573; 1999(3)SCALE502; (1999)5SCC138; [1999]3SCR653; 1999(2)LC1334(SC)

g.t. nanavati, j. 1. leave granted in the special leave petitions.2. there appeals arise out of the common judgment of the high court of judicature at madras in a batch of writ petitions filed by ms. jayalalitha-former chief minister of the state of tamil nadu, her cabinet colleagues, some mlas of the aiadmk party and some officer of the government, challenging the validity of section 3 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 insofar as it empowers the state government to appoint as many special judges as may be necessary 'for such case or group of cases' as may be specified in the notification and also the notification dated 30-4-1997, whereby three additional courts of city civil and sessions judges, chennai were established and the judges of those courts were appointed as special judges to try exclusively on day-to-day basis the criminal cases filed against those writ petitioners under the prevention of corruption act. the high court by two separate judgments of the two learned judges who constituted the division bench, dismissed the writ petitions, by holding that section 3 insofar as it empowers the government to appoint special judges 'for such case or group of cases' is constitutionally valid and not violative of articles 14 and 21 of the constitution. it also held that the establishment of three additional sessions courts at chennai and appointment of judges of those courts as special judges by the notification dated 30-4-1997 is also valid and that in no way .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 1999 (SC)

M/S. Style (Dress Land) Etc. Etc. Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh and a ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-18-1999

Reported in : AIR1999SC3678; JT1999(6)SC67; (1999)123PLR504; 1999(5)SCALE74; (1999)7SCC89; [1999]Supp1SCR591

r.p. sethi, j.1. delay condoned in slp(c) 12188/99 (cc 902/99). 2. leave granted.3. sector 17 is a commercial center in chandigarh, the beautiful city of india which is also the capital of punjab and haryana, the two most prosperous states of the country. shopkeepers of this commercial center are aggrieved of the enhancement of the rent of their leased premises from rs. 2,671 to rs. 14,000 per month which, according to them, is irrational, unwarranted by law and arbitrary being 600 per cent increase. the shops under their occupation are stated to have been initially leased out to them at a paltry rent of rs. 525 with effect from 10th may, 1968. whereas the respondent union territory have steadily enhanced the rent from time to time, the appellants herein have unsuccessfully put all types of hurdles conceivable under the present legal system.4. almost admitted facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are that the appellants were leased commercial premises in sector 17 of chandigarh in or about the years 1963-64. however, formal lease deeds were executed between the lessor and the lessees in may, 1968 on payment of monthly rent of rs. 525 per mensem in advance by the 19th day of the month for which it fell due. the lease was initially for a period of five years from the date of the grant which could be terminated by the lessor by giving one month's advance notice in writing to the lessees. the lease was renewable only once for another term of five years with 20% .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 1999 (SC)

Union of India and ors. Vs. Indian Charge Chrome and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-25-1999

Reported in : AIR1999SC3504; 1999(66)ECC24; 1999LC273(SC); 1999(112)ELT753(SC); JT1999(6)SC306; 1999(5)SCALE226; (1999)7SCC314

orderr.c. lahoti, j.1. in exercise of power conferred by section 25 of the customs act, 1962 to grant exemption from payment of duty of customs leviable under the act, the central government issued notification no. 71/85 dated 17.3.1985 which reads as under:-in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the customs act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the central government, being satisfied that is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods falling under the heading no. 84.66 of the first schedule to the customs tariff act, 1975 (51 of 1975), when imported into india for the industrial plants or projects specified in column (2) of the table hereto annexed, from so much of that portion of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said first schedule, as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said table, subject to the condition that the importer produces a certificate from an officer not below the rank of a joint secretary to the government of india in the ministry administratively concerned with the said industrial plants or projects that the goods in question required for the said industrial plants or projects and recommending grant of the above exemption.tablesl. no. description rate(1) (2) (3)1. power projects (including nilgas turbine power projects)2. all other industrial plants 20 per centor projects falling under ad valoremheading no. 84.66 ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 1999 (FN)

Albertson's, Inc. Vs. Kirkingburg

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-22-1999

albertson's, inc. v. kirkingburg - 527 u.s. 555 (1999) october term, 1998 syllabus albertson's, inc. v. kirkingburg certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 98-591. argued april 28, 1999-decided june 22, 1999 before beginning a truckdriver's job with petitioner, albertson's, inc., in 1990, respondent, kirkingburg, was examined to see if he met the department of transportation's basic vision standards for commercial truckdrivers, which require corrected distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 in each eye and distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40. although he has amblyopia, an uncorrectable condition that leaves him with 20/200 vision in his left eye and thus effectively monocular vision, the doctor erroneously certified that he met the dot standards. when his vision was correctly assessed at a 1992 physical, he was told that he had to get a waiver of the dot standards under a waiver program begun that year. albertson's, however, fired him for failing to meet the basic dot vision standards and refused to rehire him after he received a waiver. kirkingburg sued albertson's, claiming that firing him violated the americans with disabilities act of 1990 (ada). in granting summary judgment for albertson's, the district court found that kirkingburg was not qualified without an accommodation because he could not meet the basic dot standards and that the waiver program did not alter those standards. the ninth circuit reversed, finding that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 1999 (FN)

Olmstead Vs. L. C.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-22-1999

olmstead v. l. c. - 527 u.s. 581 (1999) october term, 1998 syllabus olmstead, commissioner, georgia department of human resources, et al. v. l. c., by zimring, guardian ad litem and next friend, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit no. 98-536. argued april 21, 1999-decided june 22, 1999 in the americans with disabilities act of 1990 (ada), congress described the isolation and segregation of individuals with disabilities as a serious and pervasive form of discrimination. 42 u. s. c. 12101(a)(2), (5). title ii of the ada, which proscribes discrimination in the provision of public services, specifies, inter alia, that no qualified individual with a disability shall, "by reason of such disability," be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, a public entity's services, programs, or activities. 12132. congress instructed the attorney general to issue regulations implementing title ii's discrimination proscription. see 12134(a). one such regulation, known as the "integration regulation," requires a "public entity [to] administer ... programs ... in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities." 28 cfr 35.130(d). a further prescription, here called the "reasonable-modifications regulation," requires public entities to "make reasonable modifications" to avoid "discrimination on the basis of disability," but does not require measures that would "fundamentally alter" the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 1999 (FN)

Nasa Vs. Flra

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-17-1999

..... litigants cannot bind us to an erroneous interpretation of federal legislation, see roberts v. galen of va., inc., 525 u. s. 249 , 253 (1999), we have ignored neither the actual rationale of the authority's decision in this case nor nasa's and nasa-oig's arguments before this court. focusing on its plain reasoning, we cannot fairly read the authority .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 1999 (FN)

Grupo Mexicano De Desarrollo, S.Andnbsp;A. Vs. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc ...

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-17-1999

grupo mexicano de desarrollo, s. a. v. alliance bond fund, inc. - 527 u.s. 308 (1999) october term, 1998 syllabus grupo mexicano de desarrollo, s. a., et al. v. alliance bond fund, inc., et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit no. 98-231. argued march 31, 1999-decided june 17, 1999 respondent investment funds purchased unsecured notes (notes) from petitioner grupo mexicano de desarrollo, s. a. (gmd), a mexican holding company. four gmd subsidiaries (also petitioners) guaranteed the notes. after gmd fell into financial trouble and missed an interest payment on the notes, respondents accelerated the notes' principal amount and filed suit for the amount due in federal district court. alleging that gmd was at risk of insolvency, or already insolvent, that it was preferring its mexican creditors by its planned allocation to them of its most valuable assets, and that these actions would frustrate any judgment respondents could obtain, respondents requested a preliminary injunction restraining petitioners from transferring the assets. the court issued the preliminary injunction and ordered respondents to post a $50,000 bond. the second circuit affirmed. held: 1. this case has not been rendered moot by the district court's granting summary judgment to respondents on their contract claim and converting the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction. generally, the appeal of a preliminary injunction becomes moot when the trial court .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 1999 (FN)

Hunt Vs. Cromartie

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-17-1999

hunt v. cromartie - 526 u.s. 541 (1999) october term, 1998 syllabus hunt, governor of north carolina, et al. v. cromartie et al. appeal from the united states district court for the eastern district of north carolina no. 98-85. argued january 20, 1999-decided may 17, 1999 mter this court decided, in shaw v. hunt, 517 u. s. 899 , that north carolina's twelfth congressional district was the product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, the state enacted a new districting plan in 1997. believing that the new district 12 was also unconstitutional, appellees filed suit against several state officials to enjoin elections under the new plan. before discovery and without an evidentiary hearing, the three-judge district court granted appellees summary judgment and entered the injunction. from "uncontroverted material facts," the court concluded that the general assembly in drawing district 12 had violated the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause. held: because the general assembly's motivation was in dispute, this case was not suitable for summary disposition. laws classifying citizens based on race are constitutionally suspect and must be strictly scrutinized. a facially neutral law warrants such scrutiny if it can be proved that the law was motivated by a racial purpose or object, miller v. johnson, 515 u. s. 900 , 913, or is unexplainable on grounds other than race, shaw v. reno, 509 u. s. 630 , 644. assessing a jurisdiction's motivation in drawing district lines is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1999 (FN)

Buckley Vs. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-12-1999

buckley v. american constitutional law foundation, inc. - 525 u.s. 182 (1999) october term, 1998 syllabus buckley, secretary of state of colorado v. american constitutional law foundation, inc., et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit no. 97-930. argued october 14, 1998-decided january 12, 1999 colorado allows its citizens to make laws directly through initiatives placed on election ballots. the complaint in this federal action challenged six of the state's many controls on the initiative-petition process. plaintiffs-respondents, the american constitutional law foundation, inc., and several individuals (collectively, aclf), charged that the following prescriptions of colorado's law governing initiative petitions violate the first amendment's freedom of speech guarantee: (1) the requirement that petition circulators be at least 18 years old, colo. rev. stat. 1-40-112(1); (2) the further requirement that they be registered voters, ibid.; (3) the limitation of the petition circulation period to six months, 1-40-108; (4) the requirement that petition circulators wear identification badges stating their names, their status as "volunteer" or "paid," and if the latter, the name and telephone number of their employer, 1-40-112(2); (5) the requirement that circulators attach to each petition section an affidavit containing, inter alia, the circulator's name and address, 1-40-111(2); and (6) the requirements that initiative proponents disclose (a) .....

Tag this Judgment!


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