Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.16 seconds)
Documents citing Rameshwar Dayal vs Sub-Divisional Officer Ghatampur And ... on 22 May, 1961

Imtiaz Ahmed vs Taha Export on 29 September, 1995

Even for a moment it be assumed that in the matter of procedure C.P.C. applied that there is marked distinction between the procedure and the power, the procedure does not include power such as power to issue injunction or granting an order of stay unless specifically provided by the Act or Rules applicable in that regard. The provisions of C.P.C. relating to the trial of suits which have been applied in the matter of procedure to the application, then it will not include the powers vested in the Court or recognised by Code of Civil Procedure to be vested in the Civil Court. Section 151 is the declaratory power, inherent power of the Court and the use of procedure to the application and proceedings under the Act will not be deemed to confer power on any authority unless it is a Court. Reference may be made to the Decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of RAMESHWAR DAYAL v. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER ILR 1961 (2) Allahabad 298, where the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court laid it down that "Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, as is well known, does not confer any power upon a Court but simply recognizes the existence in every Court of the power to make such orders as may be necessary in the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. This being the case, the appellant cannot contend that Rule 25 confers upon an election tribunal the power of making such orders as may be necessary for these purposes. If Section 151 does not confer this power upon a Civil Court, it certainly does not confer it upon an election tribunal. If an election tribunal can make orders for these purposes, it must be because it has the power just as any Court has the power i.e., because it has its own inherent power.
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Brijmohan Lal vs Election Tribunal Allahabad And Ors. on 12 March, 1964

held that the powers of an Election Tribunal appointed under the Act or enumerated in Section 92 did not include the power to examine a party under Order X, Rule 2 of the Civil P. C. In Udal v. Lal Bahadur, 21 Ele L R 180 (All) another Division Bench of this Court (A. P. Srivastava and J. N. Takru JJ.), following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1958 S C 698 cited above also held that the tribunal did not have the power to examine a party under O. X, R. 2 Civil P. C. In Rameshwar Dayal v. Sub-Divisional Officer, ILR (1961) 2 All 298 : (AIR 1963 All 518) (M. C. Desai C. J. and Dwivedi J.) held that Section 116-A(2) of the Act makes a clear distinction between powers or jurisdiction or authority and procedure and that procedure does not include power or jurisdiction or authority. The learned Judges held that the Tribunal had no power to issue an injunction as an injunction "is a matter of power and not of procedure". Following these decisions we are of the opinion that reviewing a decision is a matter of power and not of procedure.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Anand Prakash And Anr. vs Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative ... on 27 January, 1966

In Rameshwar Dayal v. Sub-Divisional Officer. ILR (1961) 2 All 298 (317) = (AIR 1963 All 518 (524) ) a Bench of this Court held that an election tribunal under the U. P. Panchavat Raj Act, 1947 has no inherent powers. The view expressed by the Bench is applicable to an arbitrator It has been stated that an arbitrator is not a Chancellor and possesses no equitable powers (See Am Juris 2nd Ed. Vol.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Gandhi And Ors. on 14 September, 1971

11. The next line of argument is that the provisions of Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code are incompatible with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and hence cannot be part of the procedure authorised by Section 87 of the Act, because that section makes election petitions triable under the Civil Procedure Code "subject to the provisions of the Act and of any rules made, thereunder." A number of cases have been cited in which various provisions of the Civil P. C. have been held inapplicable to election petitions on account of this kind of repugnance. For example in (AIR 1958 SC 698) Order XXIII, Rule 1, which permits a plaintiff to abandon part of his claim, was held to be inconsistent with Section 116 of the Act, which allows an election petition to be continued even after the death or withdrawal of the petitioner; in Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, (AIR 1966 SC 773), Order VIII, Rule 5, which lays down that every allegation of fact in the plaint shall be taken to be admitted unless denied in the written statement was found to be inapplicable to election petitions, because the onus of proving the essential ingredients of a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Act was on the petitioner; in Shyam Sunder v. Satya Ketu, (AIR 1967 SC 923) the requirement of Order XLI, Rule 1 that an appeal must be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed against was held not to apply to election petitions, because the scheme of the Act showed that no decree need be prepared by the election tribunal; in Udal v. Lal Bahadur, (1960) 21 Ele LR 180 (All) a Bench of this Court held that Order X, Rule 2 is not to be used in the trial of election petitions, because the particulars or a corrupt practice that had been alleged in the petition can be amended or amplified only in the manner prescribed in Section 90 (5) of the Act corresponding to the present Section 86(5); and in Rameshwar Dayal v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatampur, Dist. Kanpur, (1961 RD (HC) 195) = (AIR 1963 All 518) a Bench of this Court found that the Representation of the People Act did not contemplate the issue of interim injunctions by the election tribunal under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Naresh Chandra And Others vs District Magistrate, Nainital And ... on 25 May, 1990

48. The last case cited was in the matter of Rameshwar Dayal v. Sub-Divisional Officer, AIR 1963 All 518. This case was on the proposition that an election petition is not a petition for an injunction. The proposition for which the case has been cited ceases with the proposition itself and cannot be seen in isolation. This aspect has been dealt in this case itself. The Bench held, in effect, that O. 39, R. 2 notwithstanding a reference to which was made by the party citing it in vain, there were powers inherent in every Court. The Bench held while referring to Sec. 151 of the Code in terms that it is well known that under this section no power is conferred upon a Court but the law recognises the existence in every Court of the power to make such orders as may be necessary in the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. This case far from aiding any proposition upon which the respondents may be relying, in effect, specifically recognises the principle that an Election Tribunal can make orders as may be deemed necessary in the circumstances because it has the power, just as any Court has, inherent in it to prevent abuse.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Managing Committee, Adars Unchh ... vs The President, Board Of Secondary ... on 22 February, 1973

Somewhat similar point was raised in the case of Rameshwar Dayal v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghetampur, (AIR 1963 All 518). In this case a direction had been given to stay the transfer of the charge of the office of Pradhan, under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, to the person declared elected Pradhan and further staying the removal of the existing Pradhan, during the pendency of the election petition. The point raised was Whether the authority passing the order had got all the powers conferred upon Courts under Sections 94 and 151 and Order 39. Rule 4 and Order 41, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Patna High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bisheshwar Singh vs The Subdivisional Magistrate And Ors. on 26 February, 1973

9. There is one case relating to the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which has come to my notice. It is the case of Rameshwar Dayal v. Sub-divisional Officer, Ghatampur, AIR 1963 All 518. In this case a direction had been given by the Sub-divisional Officer to stay transfer of the charge of the office of Pradhan to the person who was declared elected as the Pradhan and directing the stay of the removal of the petitioner from the office of the Pradhan during the pendency of an election petition filed by him against the election of the opposite party. The argument raised was that the Sub-divisional Officer had got all the powers conferred upon Courts by Sections 94 and 151 and Order 39, Rule 2 and Order 41, Rule 5 of the Code. Discussing the point in respect of the application of Section 151 of the Code the learned Chief Justice who delivered the judgment for the Court said:
Patna High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jatt Ram vs Punjab State Human Rights Commission ... on 18 May, 2005

48. We respectfully agree with the conclusions arrived at in Rameshwar Dayal's case, Kundan Singh's case, Sham Lal's case, and Sucha Singh Langah's case (supra) and hold that even though the Commission has all the powers of a Civil Court while enquiring into the complaints under the Act but the aforesaid powers are only such powers which are enjoyed by a civil Court trying a suit. There are no plenary powers nor any inherent powers enjoyed by the Commission which are otherwise available to the Civil Court. It must, therefore, follow that the Commission does not have any power to issuing the interim or ad interim orders while enquiring into the complaints under the Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 12 - V Mittal - Full Document

The Goa Mrf Employees Union, A ... vs Mrf Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under ... on 2 May, 2003

In this regard he relied upon the judgments in Rameshwar Dubey vs. Jogindra Lal Saha & Ors. , , Rameshwar Dayal vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatampur & Ors., . Firstly, in those judgments the enactments which fell for consideration were construed as not vesting the authority with the power to grant interim reliefs. Whether a particular statute empowers a court/authority to grant interim reliefs must depend on the nature of the statute. The judgments do not lay down any inflexible rule as contended by Mr. Sardessai.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - S J Vazifdar - Full Document
1   2 Next