Madhya Pradesh Court September 1976 Judgments
Daluram Tarachand Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP87
Oza, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Gwalior in Appeal No. 113 of 1974 decided on 31-12-1975.2. According to the petitioner he was granted & permit for plying a passenger bug between Sendhwa and Warla via Hingwa in the year 1972. According to him this route in accordance with the map which he has filed along with the petition. He alleges that thereafter he approached the Regional Transport Authority by saying that the route between Hingwa and Warla was not motorable. He therefore applied for a diversion of this route from Sendhwa to Warla via Balwadi. This application of his for diversion was registered in the Regional Transport Authority Indore as Case No. 88 of 1974. According to the petitioner the Regional Transport Authority, after following the procedure laid down in Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act passed...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Vs. Binod Steel Ltd. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP188; 1977MPLJ797
Kondaiah, J. 1. The petitioner, the Bank of India, seeks in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Indore dated 28-1-1976 confirming the order of the Additional Tahsildar, Indore, dated 26-11-1975 rejecting its application not to attach the machinery of the M/s. Binod Steel Ltd. Company and directing the recovery of a sum of Rupees 25,765.78 P. due and payable by the Company to the workers towards their wages for the month of March 1975 by attachment and sale of the machinery. 2. The first respondent M/s. Binod Steel Ltd. Company had borrowed on mortgage of its machinery, a sum of Rs. 33 lacs on various debts from the petitioner Bank. The Company had closed its business on April 11, 1975. The Payment of Wages Inspector has raised a demand of Rs. 25,765.78 P. against M/s. Binod Steel Limited Company towards the amount of wages due and payable by the Company to the workers for the month of March 1975. The am...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkishan Agarwal and anr. Vs. the Collector, Jabalpur and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP21
Shiv Dayal, C.J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Gramin Rin Vimukti Tatha Rin Sthagan Adhiniyam, 1975 (No. 37 of 1975) has been challenged. It is contended that the different provisions of the impugned Act are ultra vires the Constitution. It seeks a writ to restrain the respondents from enforcing their orders served on the petitioners through the Patwari to produce all the pledged ornaments before the Sub-divisional Officer, Jabalpur.2. The petitioners carry on the business of money-lending. They advance money to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, to small and marginal farmers and also to others who are not covered by the Act. It is averred in the petition that on July 18, 1976, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who are Patwaris, approached the petitioners and told them that they were required to produce all the pledged ornaments involved in their money-lending business end the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Rao and ors. Vs. Shantibai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP222; 1978MPLJ20
Dwivedi and Verma, JJ.1. The several questions referred for decision to this Bench require substantially answers to two questions, namely,-- (i) the comparative scope of Rules 2 and 3 of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and (ii) the meaning of word 'appear' occurring in Rule 2, Order 17, C.P.C, to constitute appearance of a party at the hearing. The answers to these questions would provide in turn the answers to the several questions referred to us for decision. For this reason we shall proceed to first consider the two main questions already stated. This reference to a larger Bench is apparently made by my Lord the Chief Justice on account of the fact that a recent decision in Shantabai v. Chokhe-lal, 1975 MPLJ 832 : (AIR 1976 Madh Pra 21) (FB) by a Bench of three learned Judges takes the view that Rule 3 of Order 17 applies even in the absence of parties when ever since the year 1930, the authoritative view of this Court was to the contrary and the questions involved are of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinkarrao Gangaram Najgarh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP13
Lodha, J. 1. This second appeal has been referred to us on account of conflict of decisions by this Court on the interpretation of the provisions of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India. The order of reference reads as follows:'In view of the importance of the question as also conflict of views expressed in Abid Mohommad Khan v. The State of Madhya Bharat (AIR 1956 Madh Bha 259); Ramchandra Gopalrao v. D.I.G. Police (AIR 1957 Madh Pra 126); Raghunath Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat (AIR 1959 Madh Pra 43) and V B. Kharate v. State of M.P. (1959 MPLJ 534), the case shall be heard by a Full Bench. Accordingly, the case is referred to a Full Bench.'2. Before embarking upon the consideration of the points of law arising in the case we think it proper to give a brief resume of facts.3. The plaintiff-appellant Dinkarrao (to be referred to hereafter as appellant) was Sub-Inspector of Police in the service of the State of Madhya Pradesh. A criminal case under Sections 330 and 331, I.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!Universal Cables Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1976
Reported in: 1977(1)ELT92(MP); 1977MPLJ394
G.P. Singh, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, Universal Cables Ltd., calls into question 13 orders passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Nagpur on 10th/11th September, 1975, under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, imposing penalty to the tune of nearly Rs. 2 crores in respect of properzi rods removed by the petitioner from its properzi mill from 1st May, 1970 to 23rd May, 1971. The petitioner also prays for quashing of 15 show cause notices which were issued by the Assistant Collector before the said 13 orders were passed by the Collector.2. The petitioner is an existing Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner carries on business of manufacturing and dealing in cables and conductors required for transmission of electricity. The petitioner has its cable factory at Satna. For the purpose of manufacturing cables and conductors, the petitioner requires aluminium wire rods commonly known as properzi rods a...
Tag this Judgment!Swami Indradevanand Guru Swami Shri Parmanandji Vs. the State of M.P. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP102
Kondaiah, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be the mahant of Shitaleshwar Mahadeo Temple situated at Karnalpura Indore. His mahantship descended on him according to guru-shishya parampara, a custom and usage recognized by the then Holkar State. In that capacity as mahant he is holding the properties exclusively to himself. The Registrar of Public Trusts, Indore, had issued a notice to him on 29-1-1969 under Section 5 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), calling upon him to show cause why he should not be proceeded against under the Act for not getting the trust registered under Section 4 as public trust. The petitioner made representations to the Registrar in writing to the effect that there was no public trust and the temple and the properties belong to him personally. Thereafter the Registrar issued a notice under Section 5 (2) of the Act for holding an inquiry as to whether the properties mentioned therein are or are not public trust propert...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›