Madhya Pradesh Court October 1977 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.
Sudhir Kumar Mishra and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP65; 1978MPLJ9
Verma, J.1. This reference has been made to resolve the conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court reported in Narayan Keshav Dandekar v. Rule C. Rathi, AIR 1963 Madh Pra 17: 1963 MPLT 709 and Ras Bihari Pande v. Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, 1966 MPLJ 426. The question for decision is whether the requirement of consultation with the State Public Service Commission laid down by the second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, is mandatory, so that an appointment purporting to be made in accordance with the power given by Sub-section (1) of Section 58 without any such consultation is invalid. This question arises in the context of the validity of appointment of respondent No. 2 S. K. Chaudhary as City Engineer of the Municipal Corporation. Jabalpur.2. The earlier Division Bench deciding Dandekar's case (AIR 1963 Madh Pra 17) (supra) held that this requirement of consultation with the State Public Service Commission is ...
Pooranmal Vs. Sushila Devi and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1977
Reported in: AIR1979MP58; 1979MPLJ58
ORDERJ.P. Bajpai, J. 1. The short point involved in this revision is whether the amount found due towards arrears of rent and damages already adjudicated and ascertained tinder a decree of the Civil Courts as subsisting on the appointed day i.e. 15-8-1973 would be covered by the term 'debt' as defined in M. P. (Anusuchit Jati Avam Anusuchit Jana Jati) Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967 (hereinafter called as the Act). 2. The facts in brief are that the applicant-decree-holder instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne pofit at the same rate of Rs. 220/-per month against the defendants-tenants. The suit was decreed on 22-12-1970. A sum of Rs. 5,500/- was decreed towards the arrears of rent and mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 220/- per month were also decreed. It was not disputed that the judgment-debtors are the members of the Scheduled Caste belonging to Beldar community in Shahdol District, which has been notified as Scheduled Caste by the Presidential Order issued under t...
Kailash Narayan Vs. Bundi Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP94; 1978MPLJ109
ORDERU.N. Bhachawat, J.1. This is a revision by the defendant against the order of the Civil Judge, Class II, Gohad, dated 24-4-1973 in Civil Suit No. 41-A/68 regarding the valuation of the suit and payment of court-fees.2. The short facts leading to this revision are these:The plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1 herein has filed a suit against the applicant and non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 in their capacity as the wife of non-applicant No. 3 (sic) for a declaration that the adoption of the applicant by non-applicant No. 3 is void and ineffective. The suit was valued initially at Rs. 100/- and fixed court-fee of Rs. 30/- was paid. On an objection having been raised by the applicant that the suit was under-valued and the court-fees paid were insufficient, ad valorem court-fee was required to be paid. On this objection, two preliminary issues were framed by the trial Court which were issues Nos. 4 and 5 reading as under: 'Issue No. 4:D;k oknh us mfpr dksVZ Qhl fn;k gSA'Issue No. 5:D;k bl U;k;ky...
The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. the Regional T ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP1
Bajpai, J.1. This petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India was filed in October, 1976 and was admitted for final hearing by a Division Bench on 2-11-1976.2. By this petition, the petitioner-Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation claims writ quashing the order made by the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur granting extension of route under the stage carriage permit held by respondent No. 2, The application for grant of extension was duly published and the petitioner filed an objection to the grant of extension on the ground inter alia that the proposed extension on Mandla-Jabalpur route forms part of the exclusive route as specifiedunder scheme No. 8, the approved scheme for nationalisation and as such the grant of extension was in violation of the aforesaid approved scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. However, according to the Regional Transport Authority, the provisions of the scheme, as construed, did not make the route in question an...
Chhotelal Pannalal Nagar Vs. D.M., Indore and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP191; 1978MPLJ207
S.R. Vyas, J.1. This is a petition which purports to be under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by the above named petitioner for an appropriate writ or order to be issued against the respondents regarding the termination of his membership from the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 16 the Indore Paraspar Sahakari Bank Ltd., Indore.2. Briefly stated the facts alleged by the petitioner in the petition are these:The petitioner is an elected member of the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank (The Indore Paraspar Sahakari Bank Ltd.), a bank constituted under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act by the District Magistrate, Indore, the respondent No. 1. The remaining respondents Nos. 2 to 15 were aware of this detention while under detention, the petitioner could not attend any meeting of the Board of Directors unless permitted by the District Magistrate. In ...
Mathew Elenjical and anr. Vs. the Nagpur Roman Catholic Diocesan Corpn ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP39; 1977MPLJ811
Verma, J. 1. This is a defendants' first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16-7-1977 passed by the Additional District Judge, Betul, in Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1977, acting under Order VIII, Rule 10, Civil P. C. 2. The point for decision in the present case is; the true effect of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1; Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 and Rule 10 of Order VIII, Civil P. C., as they now exist after the recent amendment of the Code by the C. P. C (Amendment) Act No. 104 of 1976. We shall now state the facts which alone are relevant for the decision of this point. 3. The suit was filed in the trial Court on 26-3-1977. Summonses were issued to the defendants in which the date of first hearing was mentioned as 15-4-1977 and a direction was given for filing the written statement a week before that date. Defendants failed to appear or file the written statement as required and consequently on that date, the Court ordered that the suit be heard ex parte and 30-4-1977 was fixed for recording pl...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›