Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 77 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Sadashiv H. Patil vs Vithal D. Teke & Ors.!Ashok Y. Patil & ... on 31 August, 2000

Shri. Anil Hosamani S/O H Kottreshappa vs The Deputy Commissioner & on 23 November, 2017

30. Whereas regarding the disqualification of a member, who, alleged to have voted contrary to the whip it is issued by the competent authority such as the President of KPCC as per the resolution passed and also have power of sub-delegation and this contention which is taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents in these writ petitions but the same has been in detail dwelling into the issues in a case in Sadashiv H. Patil Vs. Vittal D. Teke in 2000 (8) SCC 82.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Smt. Sannahuligemma vs K. Drakshayini W/O. K Shrinivas on 23 November, 2017

27. Whereas keeping in view the legal aspect as well as the factual aspect relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent NO.2-Deputy Commissioner, Koppal District, Koppal, which is questioned under this petition. As discussed by this Court it is clear that the issuance of whip by the competent authority in a party has to be established without any clouds of doubt to the Court. It is further relevant to note here a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2000 SC 3044 between Sadashiv H. Patil V. Vitthal D. Teke and Others wherein the apex Court at paragraph no. 13 held as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Sahebrao S/O Narayan Kharat vs The Collector on 29 October, 2010

18. As I have recorded above, I find that the Collector, while dealing with the matter, has not recorded reasons in support of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:35:52 ::: 27 the findings on the material issues. The Collector dealing with the matter is supposed to record findings of facts based on appreciation of evidence and has failed to do so. The concerned parties have already led sufficient evidence before the Collector, but the Collector has not discussed the same. It would not be appropriate and proper for this Court to record any finding on appreciation of evidence for the first time in absence of there being any reasoned order supporting the findings recorded by the Collector. It would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the Collector for deciding the same afresh and record proper findings supported by reasons. The Collector is expected to hear the parties and pass the reasoned order. The Collector while deciding the matter would obviously bear in mind the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of Sadashiv H. Patil v. Vithal D. Teke and others as well as the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Narsing G. Patil Vs. Arjun Gujrathi Speaker and others.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R M Borde - Full Document

Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti vs Akola Municipal Corporation on 8 May, 2012

Support to Respondent No. 4 expressed by them in meeting dated 20.03.2012 does not derogate from the Petitioner's claim which is much prior and first in point of time. It is made clear impact of Section 3(2) of the Disqualification Act is being looked into little later by us. We have only evaluated stand of Respondents No. 1 to 4 that case of Respondents No. 5 & 6 is being examined by Respondent No. 3 Divisional Commissioner. It can not be accepted that due to inability or failure or omission on part of Respondent No. 3 to make entries in concerned register, Petitioner Samiti or Respondent No. 4 - Aghadi were not in existence on date of first meeting i.e. on 9.03.2012. Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court In Sadashiv Patil vs. Vithal Teke (Supra) does not lay down law on the point of absence of registration. In facts before it, Hon'ble Apex Court while appreciating argument that rules & regulations ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:35:16 ::: wp1426.12 25 were not supplied to Collector by aghadi while furnishing information under Rule 3, concludes that registration must in any case, be complete in the light of gazette notification & entries in register. Gazette notification is under Rule 4 while entries are made in register under Rule 5(1). Both these stages are separate. Opportunity to raise objection & of hearing is after gazette notification. If, while deciding such objection, Commissioner finds it necessary to drop certain names, he does so as he is satisfied about the incorrectness of the information supplied initially. Entries in Register under Rule 5 have to be as per gazette and decision on objections. Parent Act i.e. Disqualification Act does not expressly provide for such registration. In fact, registration is of information supplied by group leader about event of formation of aghadi or front which already has taken place. Aghadi or front or Samiti is therefore not coming into existence from date of such registration. We therefore find no substance in contention that Respondent 5 & 6 had not accepted membership of Petitioner Samiti till ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:35:16 ::: wp1426.12 26 16.03.2012 or then, they were/ are not prohibited from & are free to change loyalties till actual entries are made in register as per Rule 4 & 5 of Disqualification Rules. Else, after each gazette publication, there will be objections informing changes and postponing actual registration of front or aghadi. It will be giving a tool to subvert the legislative effort to introduce a discipline in the democratic process. Such an approach will militate with very object behind enacting Disqualification Act and may render it nugatory.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Jitendra Himmat Biraris vs Kiran Gulabrao Patil on 5 August, 2011

27. When the Apex Court in the present proceedings itself has held that the Rules are directory in nature, then there is no scope for me to dilate on whether the rules are mandatory and have to be strictly applied as held in Sadashiv Patil case referred supra or as directory as held in a case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh and in a case of Kedar Deshpande referred supra. I am bound by the observations of the Apex Court made while disposing of the special leave petitions filed by the present petitioners at initial stage, when they had raised preliminary ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:55 ::: 47 wp 4146.11 objection to the maintainability of the petitions itself.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 6 - S V Gangapurwala - Full Document

Akramkhan Gulam Kadar Khan Pathan And ... vs The Collector, Latur And Others on 8 April, 2015

27. When the Apex Court in the present proceedings itself has held that the Rules are directory in nature, then there is no scope for me to dilate on whether the rules are mandatory and have to be strictly applied as held in Sadashiv Patil case referred supra or as directory as held in a case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh and in a case of Kedar Deshpande referred supra. I am bound by the observations of the Apex Court made while disposing of the special leave petitions filed by the present petitioners at initial stage, when they had raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petitions itself.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R V Ghuge - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next