Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1971)IILLJ273MP; 1971MPLJ706
G.P. Singh, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against whom a decree for payment of Rs. 21,500 has been passed by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are that one Chunnilal was a driver in the employment of Central Provinces Transport Services (C.P.T.S.). The C.P.T.S. was owned and run by the State Government till the formation of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in 1962 under the provisions of Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. There were serious communal riots in September, 1956. During that period curfew was imposed and no person could move during curfew hours except under a pass issued by the District Authorities. On September 16, 1956, Chunnilal started from his house in the morning at about 6 O' clock for going to the Jabalpur depot of the C.P.T.S. for joining his duty. He had been given a curfew pass. B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1975]100ITR392(AP)
A.D.V. Reddy, J.1. The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation established by a notification under the Road Transport CorporationsAct, 1950 (Central Act LXIV of 1950), has been functioning with effect from January 11, 1958, providing road transport facilities to the general public in the State with a net work of bus routes and a fleet of buses plying thereon, with depots, workshops, equipment, tools, accessories, etc., for its maintenance. For the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63, the income of the Corporation was subject to tax under the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Acts of 1922 and 1961. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee could claim the benefit of the provisions of Section 4(3Xi) of the. Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 and under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 for the assessment year 1962-63 and their income will be exempt from the tax. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1972)IILLJ110Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. These writ petitions arise out of the same facts; and they seek the same reliefs. Hence they have been heard jointly, and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The documents produced in both the cases are more or less the same; and I shall be referring in this judgment to the exhibits in O.P. 3607 of 1969.2. The Transport Department of Travancore Cochin recruited a large number of conductors in 1952, on the advice of the Public Service Commission. The petitioners in these cases, and respondents 1 to 4 in O.P. No. 3997 of 1969 were included in the advice list of the Commission. Respondent No. 4 in both cases is the same. Pursuant to the advice, the petitioners were appointed, but the said respondents were refused appointment, though they had higher ranks than the petitioner, in view of adverse police reports about them. However, these respondents were again advised for appointment by the Commission a few years later, and they were appointed on the basis of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1973]92ITR430(Bom); 1972MhLJ826
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Vidarbha Housing Board, Nagpur, is seeking to challenge the validity and or legality of the notice dated 6th March, 1968, issued by the Income-tax Officer, City circle and Refunds, Nagpur (being annexure 'A' to the Petition). The impugned notice is sought to be attacked as being without jurisdiction and in excess of authority of the officer concerned, and the circumstances in which the challenges is made may be stated. 2. The petitioner, that is, the Vidarbha Housing Board, Nagpur, is a body corporate having been established under the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1950 (Act NO. XLIII of 1950). It appears that initially under the said Act a common housing board both for Vidarbha region and Mahakoshal region was constituted by the name of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board. Later on, under another Act called the Madhya Pradesh Statutory Bodies (Regional Constitution) Act, 1956, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2110; (1973)4SCC222; 1972(4)LC876(SC)
K.S.Hegde, J. 1. The appellant is a State Transport Corporation constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It is carrying on the business of motor transport in the State of Maharashtra. By its notification No. 2309-P-I-NGR-RTA-65 dated 18-3-1965 the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur, invited applications for three trips in the route Malegaon-Salubaza. This was a new route. The appellant, respondent No. 2 and others applied for the route in question. The R.T.A. accepted the application of the appellant and granted permit in respect of all the three trips on the Route, to the appellant. Aggrieved by the decision of the R.T.A. respondent No. 2 went up in appeal to Appellate Committee of the Transport Authority of Maharashtra State. In its appeal the only contention taken was that the R.T.A. erred in granting permit in respect of all the three trips in favour of the appellant and it should have granted the permits in question to it, viz, respondent No. 2. The Appellate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN553
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. As a common question of law arises in these four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, they have been heard together at the request of the learned Counsel and will be disposed of by a single judgment.2. Petitioner Rameshwarlal (in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 70 of 1968) was an employee of the State Government as a lower Division clerk in the Rajasthan State Roadways Department. He passed the Accounts Clerk's qualifying Examination in 1964. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation was constituted, and the petitioner's name appeared in the seniority list of the lower division clerks of the Corporation. He was selected for promotion as a Commercial Accounts Clerk, against a temporary post, by order Ex. 3 dated August 7, 1965, and was posted in that capacity at Udaipur. The State Government issued a notification on April 15, 1966 by which the employees were asked to exercise their option whether they wanted to continue in the service of the Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC534; (1973)1SCC357; [1973]2SCR925; 1973(5)LC456(SC)
A. N. Grover, J1. These appeals have been brought by special leave from a judgment of the Mysore High Court.2. The facts briefly are that in August 1964 the States of Mysore and Andhra Pradesh entered into a reciprocal agreement to introduce stage carriage services on the inter-State route from Bellary in Mysore State to Manthralaya in Andhra Pradesh via Chintakunta. In August 1965 the Regional Transport Authority, Bellary, called for applications for the grant of stage carriage permit for the aforesaid route. The appellant respondents 7 and 8 and several others filed applications for the grant of a permit. After complying with the necessary formalities required under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the 'Act', the Regional Transport Authority granted permits to the appellant and respondent No. 7 for one trip each day at its meeting held in August 1966. By the time the Regional Transport Authority had issued the notification calling for the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj187; 1972()WLN1052
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Shri Jwala Prasad Sharma, erstwhile Chairman of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the corporation'), which has been superseded by the State of Rajas than by a Notification No. F. (7) (3) (3) Pari/72 dated 20th May, 1972, marked Annexure 5 on the record. Since the petitioner has challenged the validity of the said notification and has prayed that it may be set aside, it would be proper to reproduce this notification in extenso:--'GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN Home (Group VII) Department No. F. 7 (3) (3) Pari/72, Dated the 20th May, 1972. NOTIFICATION Whereas the State Government issued a notice under Section 38 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Central Act LXIV of 1950) to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation on 18th April, 1972 to show cause why it should not be superseded; AND whereas the State Government after consideri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1973Guj268; (1973)GLR586
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner Doctor had challenged in this petition the order at Annexure A by which his building known as 'Kaushik Building` at Baroda was requisitioned on May 21, 1960. for housing of a State servant and orders at Annexures C and D dated August 10, 1970 and March 29, 1971. by which the petitioner's request for releasing his premises was rejected by the authorities. The petitioner practised as a doctor at Savli and he had intention to settle at Baroda after retirement. He, therefore purchased the suit property in 1958 and rebuilt it. It is now 'Kaushik Building ` which has three storeys. On the ground floor there are two rooms and a kitchen. Same place is on the first floor. The second floor has the same area but there are four rooms . Two rooms on the second floor are with a tenant and the other two rooms are in the possession of the petitioner. The ground floor was with daughter Jaya and her husband and when Jaya vacated, the other daughter Kailas and her husband ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1974)ILLJ153Kant; (1973)2MysLJ76
Acts/Rules/Orders: Electricity Supply Act, 1948; Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952; Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 - Sections 3, 14(3), 19, 34 and 45(2); Companies Act; Life Insurance Corporation Act - Section 11(2); Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947; Land Acquisition Act; General Clauses Act - Section 3; Mysore Financial Code, 1958 - Rule 2; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 21; Constitution of India - Articles 12, 13(2), 14, 16, 19(1), 31, 46, 226, 298, 311(2) and 367OPINIONNarayana Pai, C.J.1. The question referred for the opinion of the Full Bench is : 'Whether the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation is a 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution ?'. The referring Bench observes that the orders of this Court in two writ petitions, viz., V. H. Gokhale v. MSRTC, W.P. 2113/67, and Ramachandriah v. General Manager, MSRTC, W.P. 1258/67, which take the view that the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation cannot be regarded as a State for purposes of Art...
Tag this Judgment!