Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP353
Shrivastava, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the petitioner seeks a writ against the non-applicants to compel them to complete the election to the office of the President Municipal Committee, Katni, District Jabalpur. 2. The Collector Jabalpur had published a programme of election to the Municipality of Katni according to which the nomination papers had to be filed by 12-5-1958 and the polling was to take place on 13-6-1958. The petitioner filed his nomination paper for contesting the office of President on 5-5-1958. Section 18 of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Municipalities Act) provided for the election of the President directly by all the voters. It was, however, amended by the Madhya Pra-desh Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1958 (Act No. 14 of 1958) which came into force on 5-5-1958. By this amendment the President is now to be elected by the members of the Committee. Section 7 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1969P& H34
ORDER1. The validity and constitutionality of the Punjab Service Integration Rules, 1957, framed by the Governor of Punjab, under Article 309 of the Constitution has bee impugned by K.C. Gupta and two others, the petitioners in this case.2. All the three petitioners joined the service of the erstwhile Patiala and East Punjab States Union (hereinafter referred to as Pepsu in 1956, as District Panchayat Officers. They were confirmed as such in their respective posts in October, 1956, with the concurrence of the Public Service Commission. The petitioners are all Graduates. The posts held by the petitioners in PEPSU were gazetted and were in the pay scale of Rupee 250-15-400. The District Panchayat Officers in the erstwhile State of Punjab (prior to its reorganisation in 1956) were non-gazetted and were in the time-scale of Rs. 170-350. Consequent on the merger of PEPSU with the then State of Punjab in accordance with the provisions of the States. Reorganisation Act (37 of 1956) (hereinaft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1972)4SCC371; [1972]1SCR861; [1972]29STC215(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a writ petition filed by the respondent challenging certain orders relating to assessment of sales tax.2. The respondent held mineral concessions for extracting manganese ore in respect of mining areas in the districts of Balaghat, Chhindwara, Bhandara and Nagpur in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh i.e. before the reorganisation of the State. Under Section 4 of the Central Provinces & Berar Sales Tax Act 1947, hereinafter called the 'Act of 1947' which was then applicable a dealer was liable to pay tax on all the sales if the gross turnover exceeded the limit specified in Section 4(5) of the Act of 1947 and he was required under Section 8 to get himself registered as a dealer. The material period, in the present case, is from October 1, 1953 to December 26, 1958. This may be split up into two periods; (1) October 1, 1953 to October 31, 1956 (till that date Nagpur and Bhandara. di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1958Kant184; AIR1958Mys184; (1958)36MysLJ150
S.R. Das Gupta, C. J. 1. This application relates to the validity of an order made by the learned Judge who decided an election case By which he ordered that the election of the petitioner be set aside and respondent 1 be declared duly elected. The matter arises in this way :The election in question was held on 3-6-1957, to Ward No. 5 of the Athani Municipality, Belgaum District. On 5-6-1957, the scrutiny was made and the results were declared. The petitioner was declared elected along with two others, it being a three-seated constituency. Respondent 1 before us, applied to the District Judge, Belgaum on 12-6-1957, for setting aside the election and for an order that he should be declared elected.The grounds taken by the respondent in his said application inter alia were that there were corrupt practices committed in the said election and there was partiality of one Kulakarni who was the Chairman of the Municipality and the Chairman of the scrutiny committee. It was also alleged that c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant47; AIR1965Mys47
Chandrashekhar, J. (1)In these two writ petitions, the petitioner G.N. Sarwade and N.B. Patil, have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the Government, (i) to confirm their appointments as Tahsildars with effect from 24-9-1958 and 17-9-1958 respectively; (ii) to fix their ranks above respondents 2 to 107 in the seniority list of Tahsildars and (iii) to consider their cases for promotion to class I posts over and above the cases of respondents 2 to 107.(2) Respondent 1 is the state of Mysore, and respondents 2 to 107 are officers in the Mysore Administrative Service, who according to the petitioners, are still officiating as Tahsildars.(3) The following facts are undisputed between the parties :--The posts of Tahsildars are class II posts in the Mysore Administrative Service. The petitioners are among the fifty officials selected by the Mysore Public Service Commission under the Mysore Tahsildars and Block Development Officers (Recruitment) Rules, 1958, issued under No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(3)ALD358; 1999(3)ALT521; [1999]98CompCas48(AP)
ORDER1. This is an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliafion Act, 1996 (for short, 'the new Arbitration Act') for restraining the respondents from excavating and transporting the black granite stone from the land in question, without making full payment of the excavated stones as also payment of arrears of Rs.62,53,923.30 during the pendency of the arbitration application.2. It is no longer in dispute before me that the petitioners and B. Srinivasa Rao and Ramanadham were joint owners of land admeasuring Ac. 17.92 cts. in Survey No.55/68 situated in Rajupalem Lakshmipuram of Chimakurthi Mandal of Prakasham District (for short, 'the land in question'). Srinivasa Rao and Ramanadham had 20 per cent share each in the land in question and the remaining 60 per cent share belongs to the petitioners. The first respondent had taken the lease of the land in question from the petitioners and Srinivasa Ran and Ramanadham through two registered lease deeds dated 25-6-1992 for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963MP216
Krishnan, J.1. The petitioner who had been working as Sub-inspector of Police has come to this Court from the order ofthe Inspector General of Police dated 27-5-1958. He has alleged irregularities out of which 3 have been pressed.(i) In the circumstances to be set out presently he argues that he was really an officer under the control of the Government of the State of Rajasthan and as such could not have been dismissed by the inspector General of Police in the State of Madhya Pradesh. (ii) The inquiring officer Deputy Superintendent ot Police Afaq Hussain was prejudiced against him, being, in fact, the officer who had at the first instance asked the Circle Inspector to make a preliminary inquiry. and (iii) His prayer for personal hearing at the punishment stage was not granted. Accordingly, the petitioner has asked under Article 226, a writ or direction by this Court setting aside of the order of 'dismissal and his reinstatement in service. 2. Delay. The petitioner was dismissed on 27-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1198; 1982(1)SCALE443; (1982)2SCC440; 1982(14)LC368(SC)
ORDER1. Having given the matter our anxious consideration, we are of the opinion that Notification No. P-6303/81 dated August 27, 1981 issued by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court in exercise of his powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Act No. XXXVII of 1956) (for short 'the Act'), with the prior approval of the Governor of Maharashtra, by which he appointed Aurangabad as a place at which the Judges and Division Courts of the Bombay High Court shall also sit w.e.f. August 27, 1981, does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or constitutional.2. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court 'that the High Court of Bombay was not the High Court for the new State of Bombay within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act and that, therefore, the provisions of Section 51 thereof were non est. The Bombay High Court owes its principal seat at Bombay to the Presidential Order issued under Sub-section (1) of Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1980Bom1; (1980)82BOMLR253; 1979MhLJ614
Chandurkar, J.1. This first appeal which arises out of execution proceedings and is filed by the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtor has been placed before the Full Bench because Vaidya J., who heard the appeal, found that a Full Bench decision of this Court in Bhagwan Shankar v. Rajaram Bapu, : AIR1951Bom125 , may not be good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Moloji Nar Singh Rao v. Shankar Saran, AIR 1982 SC 1737 and since he further found that the Full Bench decision in Bhagwan Shankar's case was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Narhari v. Pannalal : [1976]3SCR149 .2. As we shall presently point out, the question involved in the appeal which necessitated the reference to the Full Bench relates to the executability of the decree passed by the Bombay High Court on its Original Side against a judgment debtor who was then resident in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad and who had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : AIR2006Chh92
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. In this batch of appeals, a question to be considered is whether the Letters Patent Appeals are maintainable in this High Court?2. The resume necessary for adjudication is as under:The State of Chhattisgarh came into existence on 1st of November 2000, that is the appointed day, pursuant to M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2000). It is a successor State. Part IV of the Act of 2000 relates to establishment of the High Court. Section 21 provides that from the appointed day, there shall be a separate High Court for the State of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred as 'the High Court of Chhattisgarh') and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh shall become the High Court for the State of Madhya Pradesh. Section 22 provides for Judges of Chhattisgarh High Court and Section 23 provides for the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court. It has been stipulated in the Act of 2000 that the High Court of Chhattisgarh shall have, in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!