Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: suits against government Page 1 of about 315,937 results (0.637 seconds)

Sep 30 1964 (HC)

Jelejar Hormosji Gotla Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1965AP288

..... present question.(40) we may now summarise our conclusions: after the extension of the code of civil procedure, 1908, by the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1951, the hyderabad suits against government act stood repealed by reason of s. 20 of the amendment act. section 4 of the code of civil procedure cannot the invoked for the reason that the hyderabad act ..... .c. in dealing with this objection, the learned judges observed:'we do not think we need consider about it because in our opinion according to the existing law, viz., the suits against government act v of 1320 f., the plaintiffs had to adopt the course enjoined in the said act of applying for permission to sue and not merely the issuing of the ..... pending at the time of the commencement of the constitution. therefore, after the advent of the constitution, there is no question of a suitor being refused permission to file a suit against government.(21) as has been pointed out by a division bench of this court, consisting of mohammed ahmed ansari and jaganmohan reddy, jj. in kaki lachmiah v. state of hyderabad, now ..... additional chief judge, city civil court, hyderabad, under s. 133 of the code of civil procedure.(2) the point which arises for decision in this reference is whether the hyderabad suits against government act (v of 1320 fasli) hereinafter referred to as 'the hyderabad act' is void by reason of its repugnancy to the code of civil procedure which was extended to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 1991 (HC)

Dr. (Mrs.) Ruth Annamalai Vs. Mrs. Valliammai Achi, W/O of Late Dr. Al ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1991Mad284

..... , deal with incidental proceedings like commissions and letters of request.order xxvi provides for appointment of commissions in cases referred to in section 75.part iv deals with suits in particular cases, like suits against government by aliens and foreign states.sections 90 to 92 in part v refer to special proceedings relating to stating of the case for the opinion of the court ..... reason of the provisions of section 87b of civil p.c. this contention was upheld by the trial judge who dismissed the suit. in the appeal, it was held that the consent of the central government to institute the suit against the ruler of a former indian state is not applicable to the case on hand in the absence of a specific statutory provision ..... up for hearing before desai, j. the respondent raised a contention that the suit was not maintainable in the absence of a consent of the central government by reason of the provisions of section 87b of the civil procedure code. desai j. upheld that contention and dismissed the suit. against which the above appeal was filed.21. section 86 gave certain immunity to rulers of a ..... foreign state and that immunity was that he could not be sued in any court otherwise competent to try the suit except with the consent of the central government certified in writing by the secretary to that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 1960 (SC)

The State of Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1961SC221; [1961]1SCR728

..... state - and s. 82 lays down special rules for the execution of such decrees. in the 1st schedule to the code, there is a separate chapter - chapter xxvii, dealing with suits against government, in which provision is specially made for adequate time being granted to it for conducting the various stages of the proceedings before courts. 22. the foregoing, in our opinion, makes ..... the procedure to be followed in suits against government. section 79 prescribes what the cause title of suits against government should be, the expression 'government' being used to designing both the union as well as the state governments. section 80 provides - making a special provision not applicable suits against private parties, for a two months' notice prior to suit. if government were a party to a suit, it necessarily follows that where the ..... plaintiff succeeds there might be a decree against the government - the union or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 1967 (HC)

S. Krishnaswamy and ors. Vs. South India Film Chamber of Commerce and ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1969Mad42

..... question of the balance of convenience and the threatened mischief or injury irreparable or otherwise, regard must be had to the nature of the suit and the particular right asserted like suits against government, public corporations, municipal corporations, statutory bodies. social clubs and its members. societies registered under the societies registration act and its members distinguished ..... from litigation between private individuals. in the case of clubs and societies registered under the societies registration act, the general principles governing the right of suit of an individual ..... somewhat similar as in the instant case. there the plaintiff brought a suit against the governing body of a college consisting of 16 members claiming a declaration that five co-opted members in the governing body were not validly co-opted and that the governing body was not validly constituted; the plaintiff also prayed for an injunction ..... the institution, but the argument was rejected in these terms:'i wonder how on such a slender foundation the functioning of the governing body could be altogether stopped when there was no allegation against the individuals concerned. even if it is ultimately held that these co-opted members were not validly elected -- a possibility somewhat .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 03 1952 (HC)

Firm Ralla Ram Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1952P& H340

..... section 5 of the revenue jurisdiction act prevalent in bombay. that section said:'5. nothing in section 4 shall be held to prevent the civil courts from entertaining the following suits: (a) suits against government to contest theamount claimed, or paid under protest, orrecovered, as land revenue, on the groundthat such amount is in excess of theamount authorized in that behalf bygovernment, or that ..... rejected by the tehsildar on the 14th of august 1948. therefrom the firm put an appeal before the collector. before the appeal was decided, the firm brought a suit against the indian dominion and against rur chand-kishori lal. during the pendency of the case, rur chand was declared insolvent and the official receiver was made a party. the collector dismissed the appeal ..... . 3 on which govt. placed its reliance. exh. d. 3 is a copy of a plaint dated the 12th of december, 1945, in a suit brought by rur chand in the name of ralla ram-raj kumar against seth ram narain etc. in which he claimed a certain sum of money as due to him. this plaint naturally would not prove itself ..... attachment, the court shall proceed to investigate the claim or objection, etc. etc. in rule 63 it is provided that where a claim or an objection is preferred, the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute, but, subject to the result of such .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 2009 (HC)

Salman Khurshid Vs. Delhi Public School Society and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 166(2010)DLT153

..... question of the balance of convenience and the threatened mischief or injury irreparable or otherwise, regard must be had to the nature of the suit and the particular right asserted like suits against government, public corporations, municipal corporation, statutory bodies, social clubs and its members, societies registered under the societies registration act and its members distinguished from ..... litigation between private individuals. in the case of clubs and societies registered under the societies registration act, the general principles governing the right of suit of an individual ..... per rule ii (7). the plaintiff also filed a written statement supporting the said action on behalf of the society in suit filed against the defendant society by mr. raizada. the pleadings in the suit no. 1906/1998 and the written statement filed therein are filed with the documents in support of the written statement. ..... of letter dated 1st september, 2008 and the confirmation of the said order after notice.2. the plaintiff herein has filed the present suit for declaration and mandatory injunction seeking prohibitory orders against his expulsion from the delhi public school society (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant society.). by doing so, the plaintiff has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 18 1973 (FN)

Employees Vs. Missouri Pub. Health Dept.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... [ footnote 2/1 ] 29 u.s.c. 201-219. [ footnote 2/2 ] see ante at 411 u. s. 285 [ footnote 2/3 ] see jaffe, suits against governments and officers: sovereign immunity, 77 harv.l.rev. l, 2-21 (1963). [ footnote 2/4 ] see also 3(r), 29 u.s.c. 203(r). [ ..... lend support to the argument that the amendment reflects the existence of a constitutional bar to suits against a state brought by its own citizens. in a nation whose ultimate sovereign is the people, and not government, a doctrine premised upon kingship -- or, as has been suggested, "on the logical and ..... in its original form, stood as an absolute bar to suit against a state by one of its citizens, absent consent. but that doctrine was modified pro tanto in 1788 to the extent that the states relinquished their sovereignty to the federal government. at the time our union was formed, the states ..... the ancient nonconstitutional doctrine of sovereign immunity. hans' resolution of the paradox, in other words, was that, independently of any constitutional provision, such suits against a nonconsenting state by its own citizens are barred by sovereign immunity. it must, therefore, be reason for regret if the court today, by ..... parte young, 209 u. s. 123 (1908). likewise, suits brought in federal court by the united states against states are within the cognizance of the federal judicial power, for "[t]he submission to judicial solution of controversies arising between these two governments, 'each sovereign, with respect to the objects committed to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 1980 (FN)

Stafford Vs. Briggs

Court : US Supreme Court

..... defends on the ground that statements made by a government official within the scope of his authority are absolutely privileged ..... . 552 them in defending suits brought under the newly enacted legislation. in that memorandum, he noted: "the venue provision [ 1391(e)] is applicable to suits against government officials and agencies for injunctions and damages as well as suits for mandatory relief. . . . as an example, suits for damages for alleged libel or slander by government officials (which the department ..... then incorporated in the redrafted bill, h.r. 12622, as well as subsequent bills. the committee reports accompanying those bills confirm that congress intended 1391(e) to govern suits against federal officers for equitable relief. although a principal purpose of adding the phrase "acting . . . under color of legal authority" to 1391(e) thus undoubtedly was ..... concern of congress in adding to 1391(e) the phrase at issue here, "acting . . . under color of legal authority," was to ensure that the provision would govern suits against federal officers for equitable relief. thus the court concludes that the proper construction of the phrase "acting . . . under color of legal authority" is coextensive with the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 1985 (FN)

Atascadero State Hosp. Vs. Scanlon

Court : US Supreme Court

..... has explained that the doctrine of sovereign immunity in english practice prior to 1789 rarely was a bar to effective relief for those who had legitimate claims against the government. see jaffe, suits against governments and officers: sovereign immunity, 77 harv.l.rev. 1 (1963). judge gibbons' recent essay similarly points out that the doctrine of sovereign immunity in ..... they thought followed from the state-citizen and state-alien clauses. the debates do not directly address the question of suits against states in admiralty or federal question cases, where federal law and not state law would govern. nonetheless, the apparent willingness of many delegates to read the state-citizen clause as abrogating sovereign immunity in state ..... children v. pennsylvania, 343 f.supp. 279 (ed pa 1972), and characterizing it as a "suit against the state"). two months later, representative vanik noted the range of state actions that could disadvantage the handicapped. he said that state governments "lack funds and facilities" for medical care for handicapped children and "favor the higher income families" in ..... people, their parents and relatives, but fail to provide services for them. . . . the opportunities provided by the government almost always exclude the handicapped." 117 cong.rec. 45974 (1971). he further referred approvingly to a federal court suit against the state of pennsylvania raising the issue of educational opportunities for the handicapped. see id. at 45974-45975 (citing pennsylvania .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 1995 (FN)

Seminole Tribe of FlA. Vs. Florida

Court : US Supreme Court

..... , is 103 not bound by the law's provisions; the other provides that the king or crown, as the font of justice, is not subject to suit in its own courts. see, e. g., jaffe, suits against governments and officers: sovereign immunity, 77 harv. l. rev. 1, 3-4 (1963).2 the one rule limits the reach of substantive law; the other, the jurisdiction ..... . jumel, 107 u. s. 711 (1883), where the court, although it "did not clearly say why," refused to hear a suit that would have required a state treasurer to levy taxes to pay interest on a bond. currie, sovereign immunity and suits against government officers, 1984 s. ct. rev. 149, 152. (one recalls the circumstances of hans itself, see supra, at 117-121.) the ..... court, however, again applied osborn in the virginia coupon cases, 114 u. s. 269 (1885) (permitting injunctions, restitution, and damages against state officers who seized property to collect taxes already paid ..... imposed by sovereign immunity as to have been recognized since the middle ages. for that 171 long it has been settled doctrine that suit against an officer of the crown permitted relief against the government despite the crown's immunity from suit in its own courts and the maxim that the king could do no wrong. see jaffe, 77 harv. l. rev., at 3, 18 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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