Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (6.78 seconds)
Documents citing Ramakant Mayekar vs Smt. Celine D'Silva on 11 December, 1995

Sanjay Gurjar vs Shri Dushyant Singh And Ors. on 10 March, 2008

87. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramakant Mayekar v. Celine D'Silva (supra), wherein it has been observed that there is thus no foundation even for a tentative finding of any corrupt practice on the basis of speeches alleged to have been made by Bal Thakeray and some other leaders in this case against the present appellant, inasmuch as a necessary ingredient of the corrupt practice, i.e., consent of the appellant has been found to be not proved.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - K S Rathore - Full Document

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

Harcharan Singh Brar vs Sukhdarshan Singh And Ors. on 11 July, 2003

40. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-section shows that respondent No. 1 would be a candidate at election from 23.1.2002. His candidature was accepted on 24.1.2002 as his nomination papers were not rejected on scrutiny. Respondent No. 1 did not withdraw his candidature which he could have done till 28.1.2002. Therefore, obviously with effect from 23.1.2002 he was a candidate of election. The son had allegedly made speeches in favour of respondent No. 1 on 6th, 7th and 8th of February, 2002. Therefore, the speeches had been clearly made after respondent No. 1 had become a candidate. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramakant Mayekar (supra) would not be applicable in the facts and circumstance of this case. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court had noticed that the speeches had been allegedly made on 29.1.1990, prior to the date on which Ramakant Mayekar became a candidate at the election as defined under Section 79(b) of the Act. Mr. Jain has rightly contended that the conduct of the candidate prior to his becoming a candidate can also be taken note of for deciding the issue as to whether he is guilty of the offence under the Election Law.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 1 - S S Nijjar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next