Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 228 (2.27 seconds)
Documents citing Boddula Krishnaiah & Anr vs State Election Commissioner, A.P. & Ors on 20 March, 1996

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

69. Boddula Krishnaiah and another v. State Election Commissioner, A.P. and others, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 416, relates to elections to Gram Panchayat governed by Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India read with Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Article 243-O(b) provides that no election to any Panchayats shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. There is a bar to challenge of any election to any panchayats except by way of an election petition.
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

69. Boddula Krishnaiah and another v. State Election Commissioner, A.P. and others, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 416, relates to elections to Gram Panchayat governed by Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India read with Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Article 243-O(b) provides that no election to any Panchayats shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. There is a bar to challenge of any election to any panchayats except by way of an election petition.
Madras High Court Cites 107 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

Mohanlal Agarwal vs S.V. Satyaprasad And Others on 4 April, 2001

16. Reliance placed by Mr. Sudheer on the decision in B. Krishnaiah v. State of A.P. (supra) is not apposite. The question which arises for consideration was as to whether the rules were to be followed. The learned Judge therein held that the object in framing the rules has been defeated by the officers who had no regard for the rules and who seems to have been under the impression that they are making promotions as if they are domestic servants.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Gautam Das vs The High Powered Election Committee on 2 March, 2026

; Boddula Krishnaiah v. State Election Commr., A.P. [Boddula Krishnaiah v. State Election Commr., A.P., (1996) 3 SCC 416] ; Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P. [Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 6 SCC 303] ; Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar [Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, (2000) 8 SCC 216] ; Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corpn., Ahmedabad [Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corpn., Ahmedabad, (2006) 8 SCC 352] ; W.B. State Election Commission v. Communist Party of India (Marxist) [W.B. State Election Commission v. Communist Party of India (Marxist), (2018) 18 SCC 141] ; Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of T.N. [Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of T.N., (2020) 6 SCC 548] ; Laxmibai v. Collector [Laxmibai v. Collector, (2020) 12 SCC 186] , and last but not the least, State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh [State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh, (2021) 8 SCC 401.
Calcutta High Court - Jalpaiguri Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bibha Devi vs The State Election Commission ( ... on 18 October, 2016

Patna High Court LPA No.1639 of 2016 dt.18-10-2016 44/50 "8. Apart from the delay in approaching the High Court it is settled law that election dispute could not have been raised in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court in Boddula Krishnaiah v. State Election Commr., A.P., [(1996) 3 SCC 416] held that in case of an election dispute, remedy is available at law for its redressal. Therefore, the High Court was not correct in law in giving directions not to declare the result of election or to conduct fresh poll...."
Patna High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 9 - C S Singh - Full Document

Akila Khatoon vs The State Election Commission ( ... on 18 October, 2016

Patna High Court LPA No.1639 of 2016 dt.18-10-2016 44/50 "8. Apart from the delay in approaching the High Court it is settled law that election dispute could not have been raised in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court in Boddula Krishnaiah v. State Election Commr., A.P., [(1996) 3 SCC 416] held that in case of an election dispute, remedy is available at law for its redressal. Therefore, the High Court was not correct in law in giving directions not to declare the result of election or to conduct fresh poll...."
Patna High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - C S Singh - Full Document

Dhruba Charana Paul vs State Of Orissa & Others .... Opp. ... on 7 August, 2019

In Boddula Krishnaiah v. State Election Commissioner, A.P, (1996) 3 SCC 416, the apex Court reiterated the earlier view taken in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami and Lakshmi Charan Sen. The apex Court held that Article 243-O of the Constitution envisages bar on interference by courts in election matters. Once an election process has been set in motion, though the High Court may entertain or may have already entertained a writ petition, it would not be justified in interfering with the election process 7 giving direction to the election officer to stall the proceedings or to conduct the election process afresh in particular when election has already been held in which the voters were allegedly prevented to exercise their franchise.
Orissa High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A K Rath - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next