SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(MP) 79

M.HIDAYATULLAH, G.P.BHUTT
BANTASINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.D.Deoras, H.L.KHASKALAM, M.N.PHADKE, R.S.DABIR

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the legality of Rule 49-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940.

( 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






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top