Madhya Pradesh Court October 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.
Bhotey Vs. the Collector, Dist. Gwalior and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP207
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 266 of the Constitution challenging the election of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Bhalka, district Gwalior. After the election of the Panchas, a meeting was called for the election of the Sarpanch. That meeting was held on August 5, 1970. Sughar Singh (respondent No. 3) was declared elected. The contention in this petition is that the election is void for various reasons.2. The petitioner's contention is that the meeting to hold the election of the Sarpanch was not called by the competent authority. Relying on Sections 29 and 30 of the Panchayats Act and the rules made thereunder it is contended that every meeting of the Gram Panchayat must be called by the Sarpanch and since the meeting for the election of the Sarpanch under Section 21 of the Act is a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, it must be called by the Sarpanch. This contention must be rejected. Sections 29 and 30 are general provisions for meetings of Gram Panchayat and the ...
Bhagwan Singh Vs. the Collector, District Gwalior and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP228; 1971MPLJ126
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the election of Gopal Singh (Respondent No. 3) as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Gadazar, district Gwalior.2. On April 15, 1970, election of the Panchas of the Gram Panchayat was held. The petitioner was elected a Pancha. On August 5, 1970, a meeting for the election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch was held, for which a notice had been issued on July 27, 1970, specifying the date, time and place of the meeting. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 were the contesting candidates.3. The petitioner's contention is that the proceedings of the meeting were void inasmuch as the meeting wascalled by the Panchayat Inspector and not by the Chief Executive Officer, who was the prescribed authority under Section 19(1) of the Act, This contention is misconceived. The meeting was actually called by the Panchayat and Social Education Organizer (Panchayat Ewam Samaj Shiksha Sanghathak). He was the prescribed authority withi...
Sagarmal Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct T ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1970
Reported in: [1972]83ITR130(MP)
The judgment of the court was delivered byP. K. TARE J. - This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 432 of 1968 - (Bedmutha and Co. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi).These two writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed against the order of the first respondent, dated August 3, 1968 (petitioners annexure 'C', in each case) transferring the cases pending against the respective petitioner at Indore to the Income-tax Officer, Bombay.The first respondent issued a show cause notice, dated May 16, 1968 (petitioners annexure 'A'), calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the cases pending at Indore should not be transferred to Bombay under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reason mentioned in the show-cause notice was 'facility of investigation'.To that show-cause notice, the petitioner sent a reply, dated May 30, 1968 (petitioners annexure 'B'), and thereafter the first respondent passed the order of tra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›