Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 1999 Page 4 of about 78 results (0.072 seconds)

Jul 21 1999 (SC)

State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, Etc. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-21-1999

Reported in : (1999)157CTR(SC)3

..... consequences that may entail the possession of illicit articles under the ndps act. it appears to have been incorporated in the act keeping in view the severity of the punishment. the rationale behind the provision is even otherwise manifest. the search before a gazetted officer or a magistrate would impart much more authenticity and creditworthiness to the search and seizure proceeding. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 19 1999 (SC)

M/S. Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shankarprasad

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-19-1999

Reported in : AIR1999SC2423; 1999(3)ALLMR(SC)701; JT1999(4)SC546; (1999)IILLJ600SC; 1999(4)SCALE109; (1999)6SCC275; [1999]3SCR907; 2000(2)SLJ144(SC); 1999(2)LC1201(SC)

orders.b. majmudar, j. 1. leave granted.2. we have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal. it is being disposed of by this judgment.3. the question involved in this appeal at the instance of the appellant-management pertains to the legality and validity of the discharge of the respondent-employee and also calls for the decision as to whether the said discharge order amounted to 'unfair labour practice' on the part of the management. a few relevant facts are required to be noted at the outset.introductory facts:4. the respondent was working in the composing department of the appellant at nagpur in maharashtra state when his services were terminated. he was a foreman in the composing department of the appellant. the appellant is a company engaged in the publication of a marathi daily named 'lokmat'. the appellant has its registered office at nagpur and lokmat is being published therefrom. in the year 1976, the appellant-company decided to start publication of jalgaon edition of the said paper and for that purpose set up an establishment at jalgaon in the eastern district of maharashtra state. the jalgaon edition was composed and printed at nagpur and was taken to jalgaon. the composing of both the editions was done by hand composing and printing was done on rotary printing machine. in 1978, the appellant decided to have composed and printed part of the jalgaon edition at jalgaon. since then the jalgaon edition was composed and printed partly at jalgaon and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 1999 (SC)

State of Kerala Vs. V. Padmnabhan Nair

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-14-1999

Reported in : AIR1999SC2405; 1999CriLJ3696; 1999(3)Crimes103(SC); 1999(2)CTC643; JT1999(4)SC499; 1999(2)KLT782(SC); 1999(II)OLR(SC)334; 1999(4)SCALE82; (1999)5SCC690; [1999]3SCR864

..... sole premise that the offence under section 406 of the ipc has also been fastened against the accused besides section 409 of the ipc. we are unable to discern the rationale in the distinguishment. sections 406 and 409 of the ipc are cognate offences in which the common component is criminal breach of trust. when the offender in the offence under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 13 1999 (SC)

Union of India and ors. Vs. Anil Kumar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-13-1999

Reported in : AIR1999SC2229; JT1999(4)SC502; 1999(4)SCALE61; (1999)5SCC743; [1999]3SCR835; 2000(2)SLJ129(SC); (1999)3UPLBEC1799

..... reasoning or the conclusions arrived at by the central administrative tribunal in this regard. the action of putting the assistant foremen en bloc junior to the ssas was without any rationale or valid basis of which has rightly been held to be arbitrary being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteeing equality in service matters.29. this view is strengthened more on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1999 (FN)

Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. Vs. College Savings Bank

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-23-1999

..... ). in addition, congress found that state infringement of patents was likely to increase. h. r. rep. no. 101-960, pt. 1, at 38. the court's opinion today dismisses this rationale: "at most, congress heard testimony that patent infringement by states might increase in the future and acted to head off this speculative harm." ante, at 641 (citations omitted). in fact .....

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!

Jun 10 1999 (FN)

Chicago Vs. Morales

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-10-1999

..... not just in its particular application to the party in suit. to tell the truth, it is highly questionable whether federal courts have any business making such a declaration. the rationale for our power to review federal legislation for constitutionality, expressed in marbury v. madison, 1 cranch 137 (1803), was that we had to do so in order to decide the ..... case before us. but that rationale only extends so far as to require us to determine that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to this party, in the circumstances of this case. 75 that limitation was .....

Tag this Judgment!


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