S.K.GANGELE, PIYUSH MATHUR
Ashis Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
M. P. State Transport, Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior – Respondent
S.K. Gangele, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 20th February, 2009 passed by the respondent No. 1-M.P. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior.
2. The petitioner submitted an application on 28-07-2003 for grant of stage carriage permit. On the aforesaid application, four objections, namely, Naveen Kumar Agrawal Vinod Paramand Patidar-respondent No.3, Akhilesh Kumar and the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Indore submitted their objections. The matter was considered by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 24-09-2003. One of the objection raised before the authority was that the route for which the petitioner applied for grant of permit was not formulated in accordance with Section 68(3)(ca) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1988’), hence, application submitted by the petitioner for grant of permit was not maintainable, that objection has been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority-respondent No.2 on the ground that before passing the order, the State Transport Authority vide order dated 02-09-2003 approved the proposal of route under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988. The
Esskey Roadways (Firm.) v. Anandhakrishnan Bus Service
Gujraj Singh etc. v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors.
R. Obliswami Naidu v. Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras & Ors.
Deva Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India and Ors.
Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S. Mylarappa and Ors.
Deva Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Gajraj Singh etc. v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.