Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1977MP243; 1977MPLJ341
Shiv Dayal, C.J.1. A Division Bench has referred this case to us. The following question arises for consideration :--'Whether the employees of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation are governed by the Regulations made by the M. P. S. R. T. C. in exercise of its power under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 or the Standing Orders Rules, made by the State Government under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961. which have been applied to the Road Transport Corporation.'2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution calls in question an order passed by the Industrial Court, Indore, directing reinstatement of Ramchandra (respondent). Ramachandra originally had joined the service of the Gwalior Northern India Transport Company. His date of birth was recorded as December 5, 1908. At the relevant time, he was employed as a Traffic Supervisor in the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation. The Divisional Manager by his le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1509; [1977(34)FLR296]; (1977)IILLJ13SC; (1977)2SCC728; [1977]3SCR389; 1977(1)SLJ412(SC); 1977(9)LC335(SC)
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. The petitioner alleges infringement of his rights under Articles 16(1) and 31(1) of the Constitution. He joined the service of the erstwhile Transport Department of the State of Kerala as a Cleaner in the Mechanical Wing in 1949. He was promoted to the post of Helper and then Assistant Mechanic. On the 15th March, 1965, the Kerala State Transport Corporation was set up under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') so that he became a servant of the Corporation. He alleges that, as the Kerala State is administering the Corporation and appoints its Chairman and Members Under Section 5 of the Act, he is entitled to the protection given by the State is to its servants. According to him, the Corporation is really an arm or an agent of the State. We need not, however, consider the correctness of this proposition as the petitioner has not, in our opinion, succeeded in showing how any of his rights under Article 16(1) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1170; (1977)3SCC36; [1977]3SCR562
v.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Nationalisation of the road transport service is of strategic significance to the country's development and new legal issues arise as private operators, threatened with elimination, battle against such schemes. One such obstacle to the proposed nationalisation of the route Nellore-Ramapuram by the Andhra Pradesh Government is the subject-matter of this appeal by certificate, the High Court having considered it substantial and novel enough to qualify under Article 133 of the Constitution. The point raised is short, the order under appeal brief but the problem is thorny, with extra-territorial overtones and anomalies in application. Can a route, whose termini lie within the same State but which traverses in its course one or more other States, be designated as inter-State route If yes, then the exercise in nationalisation proposed by the respondent State cannot materialise into an 'approved scheme' unless, as desiderated by the proviso to Section 68-D(3) of the Mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1977All395
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. These petitions,raise a common question of law as to whether the administrative directions issued by the U. P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board have binding efficacy before Regulations regarding recruitment, emoluments, terms and conditions of service, disciplinary control etc. of. servants of Co-operative Societies are framed. 2. The circumstances in which the present dispute arises may be shortly stated. In Writ Petition No. 235 of 1977, the petitioner was appointed on 9-12-1972 by the President of a Bank, which appointment was approved by the Committee of Management later on. An administrator was appointed for the Bank, who by the order dated 18-12-76 terminated services of the petitioner on the ground that the U. P. Government had constituted the U. P. Co-operative Institutional Board by Notification No. 366/C/12 P-3-36-71 dated 4-3-1972 which alone had been empowered to select suitable candidates for appointment by the committee of management, and as th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1978)80BOMLR599; 1978MhLJ462
Deshmukh, J.1. These petitions arise out of proceedings under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the State Transport Authority, Bombay, and also the appellate proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal. Since both the applications arise out of the same original proceedings, we have heard them together and this common judgment will dispose of both these petitions.2. The facts giving rise to this dispute may now be noted. The inter-State route Nagpur-Indore via Amravati and Dharni is the subject-matter of grant of regular permit for which there were four competitors. It is not in dispute that there has been inter-State agreement between the State Governments of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. According to the terms of that agreement on the Nagpur-Indore inter-State route the primary permit is to be issued by the State Transport Authorities of Maharashtra and it is to be counter-signed by their counterpart in Madhya Pradesh.3. Between October 1974 and December 1974 the State...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 14(1978)DLT56; [1978]41STC30(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This petition under articles 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a declaration that the provisions of clauses (e), (e) and (g) of section 2 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, are ultra virus of article 285 of the Constitution of India and prays for striking down the said provisions as void. The impugned provisions are : 'SECTION 2(c) 'Business' includes- (i) any trade, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture whether or not such trade, make gain or profit and whether or not any gain or profit accrues from such trade, commerce manufacture, adventure or concern, and (ii) any transaction in connection with, or incidental or ancillary to such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern ; (e) 'dealer' means any person who carries on business of selling goods in Delhi and includes- (i) the Central Government or a State Government carrying on such business; (ii) an incorporated society (including a co-oper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1978Delhi785; 1978RLR537
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 6 of 1976 to 13 of 1976 have been filed on behalf of the Delhi Transport Corporation against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 6th November, 1975 passed in Civil Writs Nos: 1179/74, 1144/74, 1200/74, 1150/74, 1536/74, 1123/74, 1199/74 and 762/74 respectively, whereby the learned single Judge accepted the writ petitions and quashed the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners impugned in the aforesaid writ petitions.(2) By the same judgment, the learned single Judge also disposed of the other two writ petitions, namely, 1092 of 1974 and 1458 of 1974. Lpa 21 of 1976 has been filed by Bhim Singh against the- dismissal of his writ petition No. 1092 of 1974 and Lpa 23 of 1976 has been filed by Jagannath Prasad against the dismissal of his writ petition No. 1458 of 1974.(3) This judgment will dispose of the aforesaid ten Letters Patent Appeals.(4) It seems that disciplinary action was initiated against the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC215; (1977)4SCC471; [1978]1SCR641
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. This batch of 374 appeals by certificate is from the decision of the High Court of Karnataka given in 374 Writ Petition filed by different persons having various kinds of interest in the Contract Carriages which were taken over by the State of Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976 (Karnataka Ordinance No. 7 of 1976) (for brevity, hereinafter, the Ordinance) followed by the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 Karnataka Act No. 21 of 1976) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The judgment of the High Court is reported in K. Jayaraj Ballal and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.. The Indian Law Reports (Karnataka) 1976 (Vol. 26), 1478. For the sake . of convenience hereinafter in this judgment, reference to the High Court judgment wherever necessary will be made from the said report.FACTS2. The broad and the common facts of the various cases are in a narrow compass and not in dispute. At the outset, we shall state them mostl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]117ITR434(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. In the year of assessment 1963-64, the accounting period being the year ending the 30th June, 1962, the Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, claimed development rebate in respect of dumpers owned by it. The ITO disallowed this claim on the ground that the dumpers were road transport vehicles for transporting materials from one site to another.2. On an appeal preferred by the assessee, the AAC accepted the contentions of the assessee and held that dumpers were not road transport vehicles and accordingly allowed the claim for development rebate.3. On a further appeal by the revenue, it was contended before the Tribunal that dumpers should be treated as road transport vehicles. The assessee contended that in the Table under the I.T. Rules, 1962, prescribing rates for depreciation dumpers have been categorised as earth movingmachinery and not as road transport vehicles. It was contended further that under a circular issued by the Board of Rev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1979P& H118
Prem Chand Jain, J.1. This judgment of ours would, dispose of Civil Revision No. 1509 of 1977 and 1510 of 1977 as common question of law arises en both these petitions.2. The land of Shangara Singh and other respondent, who were the landowners, was acquired. The Collector gave an award determining the compensation to which the landowner ere found entitled to Dissatisfied from the award, Shangara Singh and others, made an application under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) requiring the Collector to make a reference to the Court. During the pendency of the reference before the Court the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) made an application praying that the Corporation be impleaded as a party and be permitted to appear and defend the case and to lead evidence. The application was opposed on behalf of the landowners. The learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide his order dated 16th of August, 1977, dismi...
Tag this Judgment!