B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, J. L. KAPUR, K. N. WANCHOO
Madhaorao Phaike – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : The question of law which arises for our decision in this appeal is whether the Kalambandis under which the appellant s right to receive Rs. 21-8-0 per month by way of Bachat (balance) is guaranteed constitute an existing law within the meaning of Art. 372 of the Constitution. This question arises in this way. The appellant Madhaorao Phalke describes himself as an Ekkan and claims that as such Ekkan he & his ancestors have been receiving the monthly payment of Rs. 21-8 from the State of Madhya Bharat. It appears that the appellant s ancestors had accompanied the Scindias to Gwalior from Maharashtra about 200 years ago, and had rendered military service in conquering the territory of Gwalior. In recognition of this service the appellant s ancestors were granted a fixed amount of money per month, and this amount has been received by the appellant s family for several generations past. The right to receive this amount has been recognised by the Rulers of Gwalior in several statutes, orders, rules or regulations having the force of statutes; amongst them are the Kalambandis of 1912 and 1935. On April 18, 1952, the Government of Madhya Bharat issued an execu
Referred to : Ameer-un-Nissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum
Director of Endowments government of Hyderabad and others v. Akram Ali
Referred : Edward Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar and others v. State of Ajmer and another
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.