Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (3.36 seconds)
Documents citing Mahabir Prasad Sharma vs Prafulla Chandra Ghose And Ors. on 6 February, 1968

Nabam Rebia And Etc. Etc. vs Deputy Speaker . on 13 July, 2016

In Mahabir Prasad Sharma v. Prafulla Chandra Ghose46 the facts were rather complicated. However, to briefly summarize them it may be stated that in the perception of the Governor of the State, Chief Minister Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee had apparently lost the confidence of the Legislative Assembly. Accordingly, the Governor requested the Chief Minister to call the Legislative Assembly and prove his majority in the House. The Chief Minister was more than once requested to call the Legislative Assembly in the month of November, 1967 but he declined to do so, on the ground that it had been decided to call the Legislative Assembly on 18th December, 1967.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 163 - Cited by 0 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Shri Pratapsing Raojirao Rane & Others vs The Governor Of Goa & Others on 18 August, 1998

41. The Calcutta High Court in Mahabir Prasad Sharma v. Prafulla Chandra Ghose and others (supra), while dealing with the power of Governor to appoint the Chief Minister has laid down that the Governor in making the appointment of the Chief Minister under Article 164(1) of the Constitution acts in his sole discretion and the exercise of his discretion by the Governor cannot be called in question in writ proceedings in the High Court. It has been further laid down therein that if a Council of Ministers refuses to vacate the Office of Ministers, even after a motion of no confidence has been passed against it in the Legislative Assembly of the State, it will then be for the Governor to withdraw the pleasure during which the Council of Ministers hold office.
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 13 - R K Batta - Full Document

Nabam Rebia And Etc. Etc vs Deputy Speaker And Ors on 13 July, 2016

In Mahabir Prasad Sharma v. Prafulla Chandra Ghose[46] the facts were rather complicated. However, to briefly summarize them it may be stated that in the perception of the Governor of the State, Chief Minister Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee had apparently lost the confidence of the Legislative Assembly. Accordingly, the Governor requested the Chief Minister to call the Legislative Assembly and prove his majority in the House. The Chief Minister was more than once requested to call the Legislative Assembly in the month of November, 1967 but he declined to do so, on the ground that it had been decided to call the Legislative Assembly on 18th December, 1967.
Supreme Court of India Cites 166 - Cited by 6 - J S Khehar - Full Document

N.T. Rama Rao vs His Excellency The Governor Of Andhra ... on 22 December, 1995

In Mahabir Prasad v. Prafulk Chandra, it is stated. "The Governor in making the appointment of the Chief Minister under Article 164(1) of the Constitution acts in his sole discretion and is guided by the convention to appoint such a person as the Chief Minister who is in a position to enjoy the confidence of the majority in the Legislative Assembly of the State". Thus, when a person who enjoyed the majority support in the Assembly at one time but appeared to lose the majority advised to dissolve the House, the Governor only respected the convention in this behalf and postponed acting on the advice to dissolve the Assembly until he explored the possibility of an alternative Government with the Chief Minister who enjoyed the support of the majority of the House. In the record of this case we have a plethora of materials on the prerogative which the President or the Governor may enjoy in a situation erf uncertainty and doubts as to the majority of the Chief Minister.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 78 - Cited by 4 - B S Reddy - Full Document

P.L. Lakhanpal vs A.N. Ray And Ors. on 15 February, 1974

In Mahabir Prasad Sharma v. Prafulla Chandra Ghose and others : , the petition for a writ of quo warranto came up for admission and it was dismissed in liming. The learned Judge observed at that stage that the impugned orders of the Governor could not be said to be tainted with mala fide. The question whether the motive of the appointing authority is relevant in a petition for a writ of quo warranto was neither raised nor decided. This case cannot, therefore, be an authority for the proposition.
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Sri. Kurra Satyanarayana vs The Secretary To Her Excellency on 7 March, 2024

155.6. Sixthly, in view of the conclusion drawn at fifthly above [para 155.5], the judgments rendered in Mahabir Prasad Sharma v. Prafulla Chandra Ghose (1968 SCC OnLine Cal 3), and Pratapsingh Raojirao Rane v. Governor of Goa (1998 SCC OnLine Bom 351), by the High Courts of Calcutta and Bombay, respectively, do not lay down the correct legal position. The constitutional position declared therein, with reference to Article 163(2), is accordingly hereby set aside.
Telangana High Court Cites 83 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Siddaramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2024

155.6. Sixthly, in view of the conclusion drawn at fifthly above [para 155.5], the judgments rendered in Mahabir Prasad Sharma case [Mahabir Prasad Sharma v. Prafulla Chandra Ghose, (1968) 72 CWN 328 : 1968 SCC OnLine Cal 3] , and Pratapsingh Raojirao Rane case [Pratapsingh Raojirao Rane v. Governor of Goa, AIR 1999 Bom 53 : 1998 SCC OnLine Bom 351] , by the High Courts of Calcutta and Bombay, respectively, do not lay down the correct legal position. The constitutional position declared therein, with reference to Article 163(2), is accordingly hereby set aside.
Karnataka High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Radheshyam Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2024

WP No. 26077 -2019 155.6. Sixthly, in view of the conclusion drawn at fifthly above [para 155.5], the judgments rendered in Mahabir Prasad Sharma case [Mahabir Prasad Sharma v. Prafulla Chandra Ghose, (1968) 72 CWN 328 : 1968 SCC OnLine Cal 3] , and Pratapsingh Raojirao Rane case [Pratapsingh Raojirao Rane v. Governor of Goa, AIR 1999 Bom 53 : 1998 SCC OnLine Bom 351] , by the High Courts of Calcutta and Bombay, respectively, do not lay down the correct legal position. The constitutional position declared therein, with reference to Article 163(2), is accordingly hereby set aside.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next