Madhya Pradesh Court January 1970 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Firm Ganeshram Harvilas and anr. Vs. Ramchandra Rao
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP104; 1970MPLJ902
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been referred to this Bench in the following circumstances. The respondent brought a suit against the appellants for their ejectment from a non-residential accommodation and for recovery of arrears of rent. It was alleged that the monthly rent was Rs. 45/- as agreed between the parties. The defendant paid rent upto March 30, 1965, but did not pay any rent thereafter. The plaintiff served a notice dated December 29, 1965, on the defendants determining the tenancy on January 31, 1966, and to pay arrears of rent, Rs. 540/- from April 1, 1965, to March 31, 1966. This notice was served on defendant No. 2 on December 31, 1965. Since the defendants did not pay arrears of rent within two months of the notice, it was a ground for ejectment. Another ground for ejectment was that the plaintiff needed the suit premises for starting his own business. 2. On June 19, 1966, a writ of summons was served on the defendants. On July 16, 1966, that is, within one mo...
Surendra Mohan Chaurasiya Vs. State Transport Appellate Authority, M.P ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1970
Reported in: AIR1970MP230; 1970MPLJ253
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.1. Thispetition arises out of a Motor Vehicles case and has been referred to a Full Bench because of an apparent conflict of views in different Division Benches of this Court on the question whether the State Transport Appellate Authority can remand a case to the Regional Transport Authority for a reconsideration of the matter when evidence is already on record and the State Transport Appellate Authority can dispose of the case on merits.2. The brief facts which have given rise to this writ petition are that the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, advertised for applications for one permit on the Panna-Jabalpur route, 35 operators applied before the Regional Transport Authority. On the 24th June, 1963 the Regional Transport Authority granted a permit to Surendra Mohan Chaurasiya, who has filed the present petition, and dismissed the other applications. Out of the operators whose applications had been rejected, 12 persons filed appeals before the State Transport Ap...
Beni Prasad Tandan and ors. Vs. Jabalpur Improvement Trust and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1970
Reported in: AIR1970MP191; 1970MPLJ292
Pandey, J.1. This order shall dispose of Miscellaneous Petition No. 357 of 1968 also. Both these petitions are directed against--(i) Development Scheme No. 5 framed by the Jabalpur Improvement Trust (respondent 1) and sanctioned and announced by the State Government (respondent S) under the provisions of the M. P. Town Improvement Trusts Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act);(ii) sanction accorded to that Scheme by the State Government and announced by a notification dated January 18, 1965, issued under Section 52 (1) of the Act and further sanction given by an order dated September 14, 1965, passed under Section 70 of the Act to acquisition of the land needed for the Scheme; and(iii) all orders passed and notices issued thereafter in regard to the Scheme, acquisition of land therefor and delivery of possession of such land,The petitioners have further asked for a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from giving effect to the aforesaid Scheme.2. The broad facts that gave rise ...
Gangadhar Lalliram Vs. Nirvachan Adhakari Markiting Society, Vijayapur ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP16; 1971MPLJ199
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The Vijayapur Co-operative Marketing Society is a registered society under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The members of the society are classified into the following groups:(1) The Co-operative Societies; (2) Agriculturists in the individual capacity. (3) Traders and others; (4) The Government. Election to the office of the members of Managing committee of the society for the period from 1968 to 1971 was held in the month of February 1968. The petitioner is a primary member of the Arrod Co-operative Society and is a representative of the said society. He filed nomination paper which was rejected by the Returning Officer. Nomination papers of four others were also rejected. Nominations of other six were accepted and they were declared elected to the Managing Committee.3. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 64 of the Act challenging the rejection of his...
Kanti Prasad Garg Vs. the Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vis ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-14-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP15; 1970MPLJ563
Raina, J.1. This is a Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia.2. The petitioner is an employee of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Madhya Pradesh and is at present posted as professor of Agronomy in the Agricultural College at Gwaliorwhich is affiliated to the University. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he is senior to Shri Solanki his claims for the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Agronomy were not duly considered and that he was not even interviewed for the said post along with Shri Solanki. He, therefore, prayed for a writ of mandamus against the University directing them to respect seniority of the petitioner amongst the existing employees for the post of Associate Professor and to extend all consequential benefits to him.3. On behalf of the University a preliminary objection has been raised to the effect that the Gwalior Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has no jurisdiction to hear this petition in view of ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Firm Gopichand Sarju Prasad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1972MP43; 1971MPLJ898
A.P. Sen, J.1. This judgment will also govern the disposal of First Appeal No. 88 of 1965 (Firm Gopichand Sarju Prasad v. The State of Madhya Pradesh) heard along with this appeal.2. These appeals arise out of a suit for damages wherein the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 21,975/- as damages for breach of a contract. The trial Judge has given a decree in favour of the plaintiffs to the extent of Rs. 4,800/- and dismissed the rest of the claim of the plaintiffs. The State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal against the decree granted to the plaintiffs who have filed First Appeal No. 88 of 1965 with regard to the claim which was disallowed by the trial Judge.3. The facts shortly stated are as follows. On 26th June 1959, the Divisional Forest Officer, Rewa issued an advertisement in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra stating that 4301.71 cft. of timber lying at the forest depot at Jhiria would be sold by auction on 2nd July 1959. The auction on that day was, however, postponed to 9th July 1959 as...
Manoharlal Verma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-05-1970
Reported in: AIR1970MP131; 1970MPLJ51
Pandey, J. 1. This is an application for review of a final order passed by a Division Bench, of this Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 180 of 1965 dated January 10, 1968, to which one of us (Pandey, J.) was a party. The other Judge, Dixit C. J., has now retired. Theprecise question for consideration in this situation is whether, if an application for review lies, it should be heard by Pandey, J. sitting singly or by a Division Bench of this Court or by a still larger Bench. 2. The general law is that, in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, there is, apart from, the statute, no inherent power of review and, therefore, when the statute does not provide for review, the power of review cannot be assumed to exist: Raja-ram V. Rani Jamit Kunwar Devi, 1961 MPLJ 944; Deorao Krishnarao Jadhao V. Board of Revenue, Misc. Petn. No. 10 of 1962, D/-5-12-62 (reported in 1963 Jab LJ 88) and Thakur Himmatsingh v. Board of Revenue, 1966 MPLJ 170 = (AIR 1966 Madh Pra 43 (FB)). There was a differen...
Hazarilal Gupta Vs. State Transport Appellate Authority, M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-05-1970
Reported in: AIR1970MP220; 1970MPLJ284
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J. 1. This is a petition by Hazarilal Gupta, who had applied for the variation of the conditions of his stage carriage permit by adding a route to it from Sonori to Satna. This variation in his condition was refused by the Regional Transport Authority. He filed an appeal against that order before the State Transport Appellate Authority. The State Transport Appellate Authority held that no appeal lies against an order refusing to vary the condition of a permit. Against this order of the State Transport Appellate Authority the present writ petition has been filed, and the contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that a wrong view has been taken with regard to the maintainability of the appeal.2. The contention of learned counsel is that an application for adding a new route is to be treated for all purposes as an application for the grant of a permit. The last part of Sub-section (8) of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act),...
Junior Labour Inspector (Central) Vs. Authority Under the Payment of W ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ484MP
ORDERBishambhar Dayal, C.J.1. This is a petition against an order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. An inspector under the Payment of Wages Act made an application that some amount hid not been paid by the employer which was due under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The employer contested that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no power to go into that matter and decide whether any bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act was due or not. That application has been dismissed by the Authority concerned on the ground that this bonus under the Payment of Wages Act is not covered within the definition of 'wages' under the Payment of Wages Act, and, therefore, no application lay to that Authority. The definition of 'wages' in the Payment of Wages Act has been quoted in the order as follows:'Wages' means all remuneration (whether by way of salary, allowances or otherwise) expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would, if the terms of employme...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›