Madhya Pradesh Court July 1971 Judgments
Ghanshyam Gangaramji Chautre and ors. Vs. the Presiding Officer-cum-su ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP60; 1971MPLJ957
Bishambhar Dayal, C. J.1. This is a Writ Petition challenging the election of the President and Vice-Presidents of the Municipal Council, Pandhurna. This is a class III municipality. The term of the previous President and Vice-Presidents having expired, a meeting for electing new President and Vice-presidents was called by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sausar (respondent 1) who also presided over that meeting and new President and Vice-Presidents were elected in that meeting. In this petition the validity of that meeting has been challenged on the ground that it was not called by a proper person and also not presided over by a proper person.2. The relevant provisions are contained in Section 43 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, which is as follows:--'(a) After every general election the Council shall elect the President and the Vice-Presidents at its first meeting held under Sub-section (2) of Section 55 and the President and the Vice-Presidents so elected shall hold of...
Tag this Judgment!indrajit Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP30
Raina, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,2. In the last general election of Gram Panchayat Barkheda Jagir the petitioner was elected as a Panch. Subsequently, the petitioner was duly elected as a Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. On 23-1-1971 a 'no confidence' motion was brought against the petitioner but it was thrown out by overwhelming majority vide minutes of the proceedings dated 23-1-1971 (Annexure TV). Soon after the petitioner received 8 letters purporting to be the resignations of eight Panchas vide Annexures 'E' to 'L'. According to the petitioner these resignations were not voluntary and were improperly obtained by someone of the opposite party. The petitioner thereupon wrote to the Collector Guna that the resignations were not genuine and requested him to investigate into the matter. The Collector, however, did not take any action. On the contrary he recommended dissolution of the Gram Panchayat and it was accordingly dissolved by the State G...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council, Kharsia and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and or ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP34; 1971MPLJ905
Bhargava, J.1. The two petitioners (1) Municipal Council, Kharsia, and (2) Shri Gyaniram have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the State Government (respondent No. 1) dated 15-12-1970 (annexure N) published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 16-12-1970 whereby the Kharsia Municipal Council (hereinafter called the Council) was dissolved with effect from 16-12-1970 and further claiming a mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the said order in any manner.2. The following facts are not in dispute and it is necessary to state them for proper appreciation of the controversy between the parties.3. The said Council is a Class IV Municipality constituted under the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). The last general elections of this Council were held in June, 1969 in which eleven councillors were elected. Six of the councillors elected belonged to the Jan Sangh Party a...
Tag this Judgment!Harbanssingh Vs. the Trust Committee Shri Gurusingh Sabha Gurudwara Tr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP61
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J. 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing a miscellaneous first appeal. The question is whether this Letters Patent Appeal is competent under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court. The relevant facts are not in dispute. The respondent Trust Committee filed a suit for the ejectment of a tenant. That suit was decreed. The defendant filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Jabalpur. During the pendency of the appeal the defendant-appellant filed an application under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recording a compromise. This was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. An appeal against that order refusing to record the compromise was filed in this Court. The appeal was allowed and the case was remanded for reconsideration. The Additional District Judge again refused to record the compromise. Again a miscellaneous appeal was filed in this court This appeal was d...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Muratsingh Har Prashad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1804; 1971MPLJ960
N.C. Dwivedi, J.1. In this appeal, the State of Madhya Pradesh has challenged the order of acquittal of the thirteen respondents, Muratsingh. Jodha Karan Singh, Bhagwandas, Chhiman, Ramsingh, Ramdas, Ramsahai. Mst. Phulan Dulaya, Kriparam Atarsingh, Ganeshi, Mansha-ram and Chapla.2. The village .. Khiryajhansi is situated within the boundary of the State of Madhya Pradesh and is at a distance of about 1 1/2 to 2 furlongs from river Pahui, which is the dividing boundary between the State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Uttar Pradesh. In village Khiryajhansi, the respondents Bhagwandas, Ganeshi. Ramdas and ManshEiram have agricultural lands in which they had sown wheat and gram in Samvat 2021. The respondents Kripa- ram is the son of Sheoram who has agricultural lands in this village. The respondent Ramsingh is the village Choukidar and is the son of the respondent Chhiman. The respondent Atar-singh is the son of the respondent Ganeshi.3. For the purposes of Inter-zonal Wheat and Whea...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Prasad Rameshkumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP110; 1972MPLJ214
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J. 1. This is a writ petition by firm Messrs Hariprasad Rameshkumar which had submitted a tender for purchasing tendu leaves in a Government forest. After making the tender and before the tender was accepted, it informed the State that it wanted to withdraw and would not abide by its tender. Some time afterwards, it was informed that its tender had been accepted and that it would be liable to compensate the Government for any loss that may occur to the Government on giving the contract to somebody else. In this case the petitioner has contested the fact that its tender was ever accepted. But we may not go into that question and it may be taken for granted that some sort of an acceptance was accorded to it by the officer concerned. Admittedly, however, no formal agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Government. 2. Rule 7 (10) of the M.P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Niyamawali, 1965. providing for sale of tendu leaves prescribes the execution of a f...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chandra Sarkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1973MP191; (1972)IILLJ611MP
Tare, J.1. In this Writ Petition, which is described as a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, two questions are mainly involved. So far as Article 227 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it will be out of the picture. Sub-clause (4) of Article 227 of the Constitution specifically excludes courts martial from the operation of the Article. It is as follows :--'Article 227(4).-- Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.'Therefore, court-martial can in no sense be considered to be a Tribunal subordinate to the High Court. But the said bar does not find place in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, although courts-martial may not be considered to be Tribunals subordinate to the High Court or for the purposes of Article 136 of the Constitution of India subordinate to the Supreme Court, they will be amen...
Tag this Judgment!Pannalal Nathusingh Vs. K.C. Tiwari and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP63; 1971MPLJ953
Raina, J. 1. This is a petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. As the post of Patel fell vacantIn village Lukwasa, the Collector Shivpuri appointed Naib Tehsildar Kolarasas Inquiring Officer under Rule 4 of theRules regarding Appointments, Remuneration. Duties, Removal & Punishmentof Patel (hereinafter referred to as the'Rules'). 3. The Inquiring Officer invited applications for the post of Patel, The petitioner, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and four other persons submitted their applications to the Inquiring Officer. Out of them only the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were held to be eligible for the post by the Inquiring Officer. Other applications were rejected. The Inquiring Officer proceeded to hold the election for the post of Patel in accordance with Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules. In the meantime, the petitioner moved the Collector to revise the order of the Inquiring Officer in so far as it declared respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to be eligible for the post. The Co...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Gopal Devi Prasad and ors. Vs. Dattatraya Madho Lad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP125; 1971MPLJ135
Bhave, J. 1. On a reference the following question came before a Division Bench (S.B. Sen and Kaina, JJ.) for decision 'Whether the Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a Civil Court and a revision petition would lie under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code,' against an order passed by it in the course of proceedings before it?'There was a difference of opinion between my learned Brothers S.B. Sen. J., and Raina, J. Hence the case has, been placed before me. Sen, J., has held that the Claims Tribunal is a 'Civil Court' and a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies against its orders, while Raina, J. has taken a contrary view. On careful consideration of the whole matter I am inclined to agree with the conclusion reached by Sen, J. My reasons for agreeing with Sen, J. are these.2. Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court is empowered to send for the record of any Court subordinate to it and may make such ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dayali Mardan and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP66; 1971MPLJ873
Dwivedi, J. 1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful respondent No. 4 (State of Uttar Pradesh through Officer-in-charge of the case. Assistant General Manager, U. P. Government Roadways, Agra) against the award of Rs. 7,500/-(Rs. 7,000/- for general damages and Rs. 500/- for expenses of treatment) of the Claims Tribunal, Gwalior. 2. The petitioner Dayali was working as a permanent employee of the folding department of J. C. Mills, Ltd., Birlanagar, Gwalior, drawing pay of Rs. 150/- per month. He owned agricultural field near Moti Jhil on the Agra-Bombay Road. The respondent No. 1 Babulal was the driver of the bus No. U. P. A. 8105 belonging to the respondent No. 4. On the relevant date, 11-2-1967. at 4 p. m., the petitioner Davali was going to his field on a cycle. The respondent No. 1 was driving the aforesaid bus from Gwalior towards Agra on the Agra-Bombay road which dashed against the petitioner. The petitioner remained in the J. A. Hospital as an indoor patient from 11-2-1967 to 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »