M.HIDAYATULLAH, G.P.BHUTT
BANTASINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. – Respondent
( 2 ) THE petitioner, Sardar Bantasingh, is a transport operator and carries on business in partnership, mainly at Jabalpur and Raipur, in the name and style of punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service and Jabalpur Development Transport Co. , jabalpur. The Raipur Transport Co. (Private), Ltd. , Raipur, which also carries On the same business and had made an application to be joined as a respondent, was allowed to anpear as an intervener and was heard. The respondents are (i) The state of Madhya Pradesh, (ii) The State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh, at jabalpur, and (iii) and (iv ). The Regional Transport Authorities at Jabalpur and raipur. The return has, however, been filed by the State Government alone, as It is mainly concerned with the dispute.
( 3 ) RULE 49-A of the C. P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules 1940, was made by the state Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Subsection (1) of section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter called the Act), and was published in the official Gazette under
REFERRED TO : T.B. Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority
Veerappa v. Raman and Raman Ltd.
Caranjit Lal v. Union of India
C.S.S. Motor Service v. Madras State
Rajnarain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, Patna
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balasara
Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal
Cooverjee v. Excise Commissioner Ajmer
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.