Madhya Pradesh Court March 1972 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.
Shree Bus Service, Hatta Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1972MP121; 1972MPLJ518
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J. 1. This is a writ petition by Shree Bus Service. The Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, granted two permits to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on an interregional route which was covered partly by the Rewa region and partly by the Jabalpur region. After the grant of the permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, the bus operators went to the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, for counter-signature. The petitioner raised an objection to such counter-signature on the ground that there was no scope in the Jabalpur region for these two further permits being granted. The Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, considered the matter and held as follows:'The Shri Bus Service has objected on the ground that there is no scope on this route. This objection has been considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa and it has been held that there is scope ... ... ... ...'With this observation, the objection was rejected.2. The contention of learned counsel for the ...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Sharmanand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-1972
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ423MP; 1972MPLJ550
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of This Court from the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge in Second Appeal No. 195 of 1965. When this appeal was placed for hearing before a Division Bench, it noticed an apparent conflict between two earlier decisions in Sharmanand v. Superintendent, Gun Carriage Factory (1960) M.P.L.J. 110 : A.I.R. 1960 M.P. 178, and Kailashchand v. G. M. Ordnance Factory (1965) M.P.L.J. 881 : A.LR. 1966 M.P. 82. Accordingly, it referred the appeal to a larger Bench. The whole appeal is before us. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants (Union of India and the Superintendent, Gun Carriage Factory) and the learned Counsel for Sharmanand respondent, on all questions involved in the appeal.2. The plaintiff-respondent was a turner in the employment of the Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur. The factory is owned by the Union of India and is administered by the Ministry of Defence of the Union Government. On September, 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›