MADHAORAO PHAIKE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT NOW MADNYA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1960-10-11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 03,1960

MADHAORAO PHAIKE Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

NANDLAL BHANDARI MILLS LIMITED INDORE VS. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT NOW MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1961-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJ DHIRAJ HIMMATSINGHJI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-1986-11-42] [RELIED ON]
NIRANJAN LAL DALMIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1975-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
DROPADI DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1989-4-40] [REFERRED 38]
TIKKA SHATRUJIT SINGH VS. BRIG SUKHJIT SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1992-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJKUMAR SHRI PRAMODSINHJI OF RAJPIPLA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1965-6-1] [REFERRED]
SHEETAL REFINERIES PVT LTD VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(APH)-2001-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
COLONEL LAL RAMPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1960-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. CH JAWAHIRLAL BATAI SAO [LAWS(MPH)-1962-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
RANOJIRAO MADHAVRAO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1964-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL FIBRE DEALERS LTD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(CAL)-1977-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
SWADESHI COTTON AND FLOUR MILLS VS. T S PARASKAR [LAWS(MPH)-1970-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VS. SARDAR VIRENDRASINGH [LAWS(MPH)-1977-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA MANGILAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1987-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
LINGARAJ SARAF VS. AKHAYA KUMAR SARAF [LAWS(ORI)-2007-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
M K BALAKRISHNAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
BALCHAND UDAIRAM VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-1989-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
ABDULKARIM KHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1961-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
TILKAYAT GOVINDLALJI VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1962-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
PT JAYVANT RAO VS. PT CHANDRAKANT RAO [LAWS(RAJ)-1966-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMICHAND VS. CHAINMAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
Bangalore Turf Club Ltd., A company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented herein by its Secretary, Sri S. Nirmal Prasad VS. State of Karnataka represented by the Chief Secretary and The Executive Engineer, Publ [LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-195] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINGH RAO(MAJOR) VS. RAJA BAI SAHEBA [LAWS(SC)-1967-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
M.C. AGRAWAL VS. M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTICS CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
YUVRAJ PRITHVIRAJSINHJI S/O MAHARAO MADANSINHJI VS. MAHARANI RAJENDRA KUNVARBA SAHEB [LAWS(GJH)-2010-7-590] [REFERRED TO]
PROMOD CHANDRA DEB BADA KUMAR PRATAP GANGADEB HER HIGHNESS MAHA RAJMATA SURATARANGINI DEBI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-1961-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAH S V JAGANNATH RAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HYDERABAD [LAWS(SC)-1961-7-4] [RELIED ON]
TILKAYAT SHRI GOVINDLALJI MAHARAJ TRIYAMBAK LAL GOSWAMI SHN CILANSHYAMLAIJI TILKAYAT SHRI GOWINDLAIJI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-1963-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR NARSING PRATAP SINGH DEO VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-1964-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
REVATHINNALBALAGOPALA VARMA INDIRABAYI VS. HIS HIGHNESS SHRI PADMANABHA DASA BALA RAMA VARMA [LAWS(SC)-1991-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LIMITED IN BOTH THE APPEAS VS. UNION OF INDIA IN BOTH THE APPEALS [LAWS(SC)-1962-11-43] [DISTINGUISHED]
BENGAL NAGPUR COTTON MILLS LIMITED VS. BOARD OF REVENUE MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1963-7-2] [DISTINGUISHED]
H H MAHARAJADHIRAJA MADHAV RAO JIVAJI RAO SGINDIA BAHADUR OF GWALIOR H H MAHARAJADHIRAJA MAHARANA SHRI BHAGWAT SINGHJI BAHADUR OF UDAIPUR COL H H BRARBANS SARAMAUR RAJA I RAJAGAN SIR PRATAP SINGH MALVENDRA BAHADUR COL RAJA SURINDER SINGH BAHADUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1970-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATE OF PUNJAB VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1977-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
DRAUPADI DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2004-9-129] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAM PARSHAD [LAWS(P&H)-1962-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
LRS OF JAGDISH LAL PUJARI VS. LRS OF RAGHUNANDAN PUJARI [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. GWALIOR SUGAR COMPANY, LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1960-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
BHASKAR RAMCHANDRA JOSHI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-7-145] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO LTD VS. D D SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2014-3-80] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA DEVI SAXENA VS. STATE OF M.P [LAWS(MPH)-2014-4-151] [REFERRED TO]
MOVAT SINGH VS. PRABANDH SANCHALAK, M P WARE HOUSING & LOGISTIC CORPORATION [LAWS(MPH)-2014-1-186] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. VS. ANJUMAN SOCIETY KHANDAN-E-AMIRIYA [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-9-65] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAT RAM AND ORS. VS. LACHHMU AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-1990-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAT PATHAK VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2016-2-63] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR PRASAD SAHA VS. THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS (INDIA) [LAWS(CHH)-2016-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
V. VENKATA REDDY AND OTHERS VS. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-1972-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
ANJUMAN SOCIETY KHANDAN VS. THE SATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-1994-7-116] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMESHWAR PRASAD ROY @ RAI VS. UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK [LAWS(PAT)-2017-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS VS. SANKARSAN SINGH NINA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2017-9-102] [REFERRED TO]
ATMESH KUMAR ROY VS. MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, DISTRICT- PATNA [LAWS(PAT)-2020-9-47] [REFERRED TO]
DINAVAHI LAKSHMI KAMESWARI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
A. V. V. B. EESWARA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
J. ASWARTHA NARAYANA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-12-60] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.)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 and 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 executive order terminating the said payment to the appellant; that is why the appellant had to file the present petition in the High Court of Madhya Bharat against the State of Madhya Bharat and the Government of Madhya Bharat, Revenue Department, respondents 1 and 2 respectively under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In this petition the appellant had prayed for an order that a writ in the nature of mandamus, or in the alternative an appropriate direction or order be issued calling upon the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the said executive order. In his petition the appellant challenged the said order on two grounds. It was urged that since the appellant's right to receive the specified amount had been statutorily recognised by the State of Gwalior it was not open to respondent 1 to extinguish that right merely by an executive order. In the alternative it was contended that the right to receive the said amount from month to month was property to which the appellant was entitled, and he could not be divested of that property without the payment of compensation under Art. 31 of the Constitution.
(2.)These pleas were denied by the respondents. The respondent's case was that the payment made to the appellant's ancestors and to him was by way of emoluments for military service and did not constitute property, and that the Kalambandis on which the appellant relied did not constitute an existing law under Art. 372. It appears that along with the appellant ten other person had filed similar petitions making prayers for similar writs or orders against the respondents and their pleas were similarly challenged by the respondents. All the eleven petitions were accordingly tried together.
(3.)These petitions were heard by a Full Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court consisting of Shinde, C. J. and Dixit and Newaskar, JJ. All the three learned judges agreed in holding that the Kalambandis on which the petitioners had rested their case were orders issued by the Ruler for the purpose of reorganising the scheme of administration and that they did not amount to law or regulation having the force of law. Dixit J. gave a specific reason in support of his conclusion that the Kalambandis did not amount to a statute. He held that in Gwalior there was a well recognised law-making machinery or custom, and since the Kalambadis in question did not satisfy the requirements of the forms and solemnities specified in that behalf they could not claim the statues of a statute. In the result all the petitions were dismissed. The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution, and it is with the said certificate that he has come to this Court in the present appeal.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.