Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950

11 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

BRIJ MOHAN PARIHARversusM.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.

1986 INSC 25125 November 1986Dismissed

The petitioner, Brij Mohan Parihar, had an agreement with the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC) to operate his bus as a nominee on a specific route for five years ending in 1982, after which he was allowed to ply on a monthly basis under temporary permits. When the route was later brought under a

SHER SINGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

1983 INSC 15521 October 1983Dismissed

Sher Singh, a private operator holding stage‑carriage permits on an inter‑state route, applied for renewal of his permits under Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation applied for a fresh permit on the same route. The Regional Transport Authority, invoking Section 47(1

DELHI STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

1997 INSC 29720 March 1997Dismissed

The Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., a company limited by shares, claimed exemption from income tax under Section 11 read with Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asserting that its income was derived from property held in trust for charitable purposes. The claim pertained to assessment years before Decemb

ISHWAR SINGH BAGGA & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN ETC.

1986 INSC 24219 November 1986Case Allowed

The petitioners, holders of contract carriage permits, challenged a 1975 Rajasthan Government notification that authorised officers of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (Deputy General Manager (Traffic), Assistant Depot Managers and Traffic Inspectors) to exercise the powers under Section 129A of the Motor

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusBABY P. P. & ORS.

2018 INSC 52516 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), a State Transport Undertaking (STU), sought to enforce a scheme notified under Sections 99 and 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that gave it exclusive rights on the Angamaly‑Perumbavoor route, a notified route. Private operator Baby P.P. applied to the Regional Tr

PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALAversusMANGAL SINGH AND ORS.

2011 INSC 38712 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether employees of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation could claim pension benefits under a scheme introduced in 1992 despite not exercising the option to join the scheme or refunding advances taken from the employer's C.P.F. contribution as required by the Corporation's Regulations. The C

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION --I & ANR.versusBAL MUKUND BAIRWA

2009 INSC 1412 January 2009Reference answered

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (a State corporation) terminated several employees and the employees filed civil suits alleging violation of natural‑justice principles and statutory regulations. The Supreme Court was asked to resolve a conflict between earlier judgments on whether civil courts have juris

SARASWATI DEVI & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

1980 INSC 2054 November 1980Dismissed

The petitioners, a group of private road‑transport operators, challenged the Uttar Pradesh Government’s approval of a scheme that nationalised certain bus routes in favour of the State Transport Undertaking (STU) under sections 68C and 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act. They argued that the scheme was not necessary in the

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR. ETC.versusKRISHNA KANT ETC. ETC.

1995 INSC 3353 May 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The employees of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation were dismissed after disciplinary inquiries conducted under certified Standing Orders. They filed civil suits seeking declaration that the dismissals were illegal and that they be reinstated with benefits. The corporation contended that the Civil Court lacked

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search