Madhya Pradesh Court January 1974 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.
Shivram Bakshi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-1974
Reported in: AIR1974MP120; 1974MPLJ319
Singh, J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to put the petitioner in vacant possession of House No. 287, Napier Town, Jabalpur. 2. The facts are that the petitioner Shivram Bakshi was the tenant of House No. 287 and Smt. Chhabrani Bahu and Smt. Chandrani Bahu were the owners of the house in 1969 when it was requisitioned under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation (Requisition) Act, 1948. The order of requisition which was passed on 11th June, 1969 (Annexure P-1) directed Chhabrani Bahu and Chandrani Bahu, the owners, and Shivram Bakshi, the occupant, to deliver possession of the house to the Rent Controlling Authority. The house was taken possession of by this order of requisition. On 15th March, 1972 the Government decided to de-requisition the house and to requisition another house bearing No. 315. It appears that House No. 315 belongs to the petitioner Baksh...
Ranvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. Through Collector, Vidisha and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-1974
Reported in: AIR1974MP121; 1974MPLJ197
Dwivedi, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner's case is this. The petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Phufer, Pargana Basoda, District Vidisha, since 1970. This Panchayat consisted of 19 members including 16 elected and 3 co-opted. On 14-9-72, a meeting was convened to consider a, 'no-confidence' motion against the petitioner. Only 10 members attended that meeting, out of whom 9 voted for the resolution but it was not carried out.3. Bhajju, Jujharsingh, Rajhai and Gyanbai Panchas resigned on 15-9-72 (Annexures 2, 3, 4 and 5). Another meeting was again convened on 5-10-72 to consider the motion of 'no-confidence' against the petitioner. In this meeting, the above Panchas who had resigned voted in favour of the 'no-confidence' motion. Further, according to Section 31 of the M. P. Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act') the motion could not be moved again before the expiry of six months. The petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›