Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP150; 1968MPLJ854
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 112, 131, 151, 152, 153, 229, 249, 295,367, 368, 374, 512 and 537, all of 1966 and Misc. Petition No. 45 of 1967.2. In all these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the validity of Schemes, described as Schemes Nos. 13, 14, 19, 23, 26, 33, 42, 60 and 61, published by the State Government under Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter called the Act), has been challenged. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68-C of the Act, the Madhya Pra-desh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), constituted under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, published proposals in various issues of the Gazette propounding the aforestated Schemes for the running and operation by the Corporation of road transport services on the routes specified in the Schemes. The notifications publishing the Schemes invited the persons affected by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP15; 1968MPLJ651
Dixit, C.J.1. The petitioner in this case, who was elected as a Councillor of the Municipal Council, Rewa, seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order made by the State Government on 23rd March 1968 rescinding its earlier order dated 4th January 1968 dissolving the Municipal Council.2. On 5th May 1967 the Government Issued a notice to the Municipal Council, Rewa, under Section 328 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) asking it to show cause why it should not be dissolved on account of its certain acts of commission and omission stated in the charges enumerated in the notice. The Council gave its explanation. After considering the explanation furnished by the Council in reply to the notice, the Government passed an order under Section 328 (1) of the Act dissolving the Council. The operative portions of that order ran thus:'The State Government after carefully considering the explanation furnished by the Council in regard to the above c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP28
Singh, J.1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is by the Collector, Seoni and is directed against an award made by the Additional District Judge, Seoni on 2nd May, 1967 on a reference under Section 18 of the Act 2. An area of 7.35 acres of land belonging to the respondents out of Khasra No. 47/1 situate in village Nangelipeth, District Seoni was acquired by the State Government in 1963 for implementation of Seoni Water Supply Scheme. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 4th November, 1963. Notices under Section 9 of the Act were issued to the respondents on 28th December, 1963 in reply to which they filed their claim for compensation on 25th February, 1964. The respondents stated that though the price of the land was much more, they were willing to accept compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per acre. The land Acquisition Officer made his award en 17th August, 1964. On the material produced before him he h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968MP254; 1968MPLJ616
Dixit, C.J. 1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a decision of Shiv Dayal J. dismissing an appeal preferred by the appellants against an order of the District Judge, Sagar by which the learned District Judge rejected an application preferred by the appellants under Order 21 Rule 89 C.P.C.2. The material facts are that in execution of a money decree held by the respondent No. 1 Bittibai against Babulal, Rikhilal, Rani Bahu, Rameshwar Prasad. Maharani, Bhagwandas and three others, a house belonging to the judgment-debtors was sold on 8th January 1966 and purchased by the respondent No 2 Himmatbhai. On 17th January 1966, the respondent Babulal made an application under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. for setting aside the sale. On 7th February 1966 an application under Order 21, Rule 89, signed by Babulal, was made and on the same day the requisite deposit under Order 21, Rule 89 was made by Babulal on behalf of himself and on behalf of Rikhilal, Bhagwandas and Rameshwar Prasad. The learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP96; 1969CriLJ748; 1969MPLJ436
1. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh have filed his appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Gwalior, dated 18th July 1966, setting aside the order of conviction passed by the Magistrate First Class, Bhander, dated 24th April 1966, convicting the accused Ramcharan under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Inter Zonal Wheat & Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1964, and sentencing him to Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, or, in default, to 4 months' Rigorous Imprisonment.2. The prosecution case was this. On the night intervening between 15th and 16th May, 1965, the accused was found exporting wheat from Madhya Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh in contravention of Section 3 of the Inter Zonal Wheat & Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1964. There were 9 carts laden with wheat bags landed into the 'Pat' of the Pahuj river, proceeding from Mouja Khiria-Jhansi in Madhya Pradesh, he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1969)ILLJ81MP; 1968MPLJ643
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. The circumstances in which this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing a decision of the industrial court is filed are that respondent 1, Mukund, was employed as a permanent clerk in the petitioner-mills. The management held an enquiry against him on the charge of disobedience of an order of the management directing him to work in the provident fund section on 9,11 and 12 September 1962. As a result of the enquiry, Mukund's services were terminated with effect from 3 March 1963 after giving him one month's notice-pay. On 5 March 1963, Mukund received from the petitioner-mills the salary amount due to him as well as the amount of gratuity and passed a receipt in favour of the petitioner in the following words :-Received the sum of Rs. Rs. 2,360.66 (in words, two thousand, three hundred and sixty rupees and sixty-six naye paise only). Received in full and final payment of all my claims.2. On 24...
Tag this Judgment!