Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing Subhash Desai vs Sharad J. Rao on 31 March, 1994

V.M.Singh S/O Mander Singh vs Feroze Varun Gandhi on 14 September, 2011

22. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the principles laid down in the cases of Subhas Desai (supra), Mohan Rawale (supra), Chandrakanta Goyal (supra) and Ramakant Mayker (supra) have not laid down any law and are not binding precedents. In these cases, the principles being relied upon by the counsel for the respondent were propounded only on the concession granted by the counsels.
Allahabad High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke vs Dr. Sujay Radhakrishna Vikhe-Patil on 8 April, 2026

The said argument was turned down by the Hon'ble Apex Court which held that even a person whose nomination form is rejected can be said to be a candidate, whereas in the present case, the judgments in the case of Mohan Rawale (supra) and Subhash Desai Vs. Sharad Rao (supra) are clearly applicable, as on the date of alleged statement the respondent had not filled the nomination at all.
Bombay High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Sujay Radhakrishna Vikhe-Patil vs Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke on 8 April, 2026

The said argument was turned down by the Hon'ble Apex Court which held that even a person whose nomination form is rejected can be said to be a candidate, whereas in the present case, the judgments in the case of Mohan Rawale (supra) and Subhash Desai Vs. Sharad Rao (supra) are clearly applicable, as on the date of alleged statement the respondent had not filled the nomination at all.
Bombay High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri B Suresh Gowda vs Sri D C Gowrishankaraswamy on 30 March, 2023

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Subhash Desai v. Sharad J. Rao and Others reported in AIR 1994 SC 2277 (specifically, para-8) and Chandrakanta Goyal v. Sohan Singh Jodh Singh Kohli reported in (1996) 1 SCC 378 (specifically, para-3) which would indicate that matters prior to filing of nomination papers cannot be looked into while passing of a judgment.
Karnataka High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - S S Yadav - Full Document

Sneha Dube Pandit Alias Sneha Premnath ... vs Vijay Govind Patil on 7 August, 2025

In case of Subash Desai Vs Sharad J Rao (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that before the Court proceeds to investigate allegations of corrupt practices, the Court must be satisfied that the material facts have been stated alongwith the full particulars of the corrupt practice alleged by the Petitioner and in cases where the Court finds that neither material facts have been pleaded nor full particulars of the corrupt practice as required by Section 83 have been furnished in the election petition, the election petition can be dismissed not under Section 86 of R.P. Act, 1971 but under provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, which are applicable, read with Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act, 1971 saying that it does not disclose a cause of action.
Bombay High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Medisetty Chennakesavulu And Ors. vs Revenue Divisional Officer And ... on 3 October, 2001

14. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The Supreme Court in Subhash Desai v. Sharad J. Rao, held that inclusion and exclusion of names could not be subject matter of election. However, that is interpreted with reference to the clause to improper reception, refusal or rejection of any Panchayat, which is void. But in the instant case, it is clearly stated that non-compliance with the provisions of the Act also can be made as one of the grounds of challenge and whether the inclusion or exclusion was in accordance with law or whether in fact there is any inclusion or exclusion, if so whether the inclusion or exclusion is justified or not are all the questions liable to dealt with in the election dispute. Therefore, the contention that restricted meaning should be given cannot be accepted in view of the comprehensiveness of Clause (4) of Rule 12 (d) of the Rules referred to above.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next