RAMESH CHAND ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

RAMESH CHAND ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Sections 7 and 16 of U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 validly provide that specification of the number of services is not an essential requirement in schemes under Sections 68C and 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; schemes are not invalid for lack thereof.

Parties
Appellant: Ramesh Chand etc. etc.; Respondent: State of U.P. and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 September 1979
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal, Writ Petition, Special Leave Petition / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicles—scheme Validity, State Transport Undertaking, Specification of Number of Services, U.p. Motor Vehicles (special Provisions) Act, 1976
Administrative Law Transport Law Motor Vehicles—scheme Validity State Transport Undertaking Specification of Number of Services U.p. Motor Vehicles (special Provisions) Act, 1976

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramesh Chand etc. etc.

Appellant

State of U.P. and others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal, Writ Petition, Special Leave Petition / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sections 7 and 16 of U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 dispense with specification of number of services in transport schemes under Sections 68C and 68D of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
  2. 2 Whether failure to specify the number of services in the scheme invalidates the scheme

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 7 and 16 of U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 validly provide that specification of the number of services is not an essential requirement in schemes under Sections 68C and 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; schemes are not invalid for lack thereof.

Court Disposition

Appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions are dismissed with costs.