Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 386 (1.31 seconds)
Documents citing S.T. Muthusami vs K. Natarajan & Ors on 20 January, 1988

R.Sakkarapani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 August, 2018

103. It is also true that this Court does not ordinarily in exercise of its discretion to invoke writ jurisdiction in an election dispute, if an alternative remedy is available. However, the judgment in S.T.Muthusamy v. Natarajan, supra, has no manner of election since the judgment arises in connection with the election to a panchayat. There is a bar under Article 243O of the Constitution to interference by Courts in electoral matters relating to panchayats.
Madras High Court Cites 104 - Cited by 2 - P T Asha - Full Document

R.Sakkarapani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 August, 2018

103. It is also true that this Court does not ordinarily in exercise of its discretion to invoke writ jurisdiction in an election dispute, if an alternative remedy is available. However, the judgment in S.T.Muthusamy v. Natarajan, supra, has no manner of election since the judgment arises in connection with the election to a panchayat. There is a bar under Article 243O of the Constitution to interference by Courts in electoral matters relating to panchayats.
Madras High Court Cites 107 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

Karbhari Maruti Agawan And Others vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 7 April, 1994

15. Shri Mhase relied on another judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Someshwar Sabakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited and etc. v. Shrinivas Patil etc. which holds that the preparation of the list of voters is an intermediate stage in the process of election and also holds that the disputes relating to the voters' list must be resolved by way of substantive election petition under Section 144T of the Co-operative Societies Act and not by a writ petition, So far as the first proposition is concerned, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge. But so far as the second proposition is concerned, we find that that is not the correct position in law. Merely because a point can be raised while questioning the validity of an election, the point is not excluded from consideration in a writ petition. We have already discussed the judgments of Supreme Court in N. P. Ponnuswami's Case cited supra and S. T. Muthusami's Case cited supra and we have also considered the Division Bench judgment in Osmanabad Taluka Bhaji Pala Va Phale Utpadak Prakriya Sanstha Ltd. v. The Collector, Osmanabad cited supra and we have found that there is no rule of jurisdiction prohibiting the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters relating to the preparation of the voters' list in the elections of Specified Co-operative Societies.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

D. Ponnusamy vs The Deputy Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 13 November, 1990

The above ratio has also been followed in S.T. Muthuswami v. K. Natarajan . Though it was a case where an election to the office of the President of a Municipal Board was challenged, in that case, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the election to the office of the President could be challenged only by way of an election petition. Here the question raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is a much narrower one. The ultimate prayer of the petitioner is to prevent the 3rd respondent from taking further part in the election to the office of the President and Vice-President. In my considered view, it cannot be done. The 3rd respondent may or may not take part in the election and she may or may not vote in the election to be held to the office of the President and Vice-President. Therefore, this court, on the basis of mere assumption, cannot issue a writ of mandamus as asked for by the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Shree Bhawani Paper Mills Limited vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 September, 2015

[See N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422, Municipal Council, Khurai v. Kamal Kumar,AIR 1965 SC 1321, Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das, 1984(2)SCC 436, S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, 1988(1) SCC 572, Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant,1995(5) SCC 75, Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, 2000(6) SCC 293, A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, 2000(7) SCC 695, L.L. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of A.P., 2001(6) SCC 634 Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra, 2001(8) SCC 509, Pratap Singh v. State of Haryana 2002(7) SCC 484 and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO. 2003(1) SCC 72.
Allahabad High Court Cites 90 - Cited by 6 - T Agarwala - Full Document

M.S.D. Thenraja vs Executive Officer And Anr. on 30 January, 1997

27. Similarly, in W.P.Nos. I836 and 1837 of 1992 decided on 12.2.1992 following N.P. Ponnuswand v. Returning Officer, Namakkal, and S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, mis court has taken the view that persons aggrieved by any order resulting in non-participation in election process can, if so advised, resort to an effective alternative remedy contemplated to resolve the dispute by way of an election petition.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S Binani Cement vs . State Of Rajasthan & Ors. on 19 January, 2015

In para 13 of the judgment in S.T. Muthusami Vs. K.Natarajan and Ors.(supra), the Supreme Court, following the aforesaid judgments, accepted the opinion expressed by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court that though no legislature can impose limitations on the constitutional powers of the Courts, it is a sound exercise of discretion to bear in mind the policy of the legislature to have disputes about these special rights, and to resolve election disputes after the elections are over. The writ petitions should not be lightly entertained in such class of cases.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Ambwani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next