Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 49 (2.69 seconds)
Documents citing Ramesh Rout vs Rabindra Nath Rout on 9 December, 2011

S.M.Nasar vs Pandia Rajan. K

In Ramesh Rout v. Rabindra Nath Rout, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the handbook issued to the Returning Officer does not have a statutory corrupt act and therefore, a mere failure to adhere to the directions contained in the handbook without any further evidence as to the effect of such failure cannot have the effect of vitiating the elections. Therefore, the failure on the part of the Returning Officer to have a recount 28/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Election Pet. No.3 of 2016 of the postal ballots cannot be a ground to vitiate the elections.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

S.M.Nasar vs Pandia Rajan. K

In Ramesh Rout v. Rabindra Nath Rout, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the handbook issued to the Returning Officer does not have a statutory corrupt act and therefore, a mere failure to adhere to the directions contained in the handbook without any further evidence as to the effect of such failure cannot have the effect of vitiating the elections. Therefore, the failure on the part of the Returning Officer to have a recount of the postal ballots cannot be a ground to vitiate the elections. 28/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Election Pet. No.3 of 2016 17.6. I am therefore, constrained to conclude that even though there is a failure on the part of the Returning Officers to have conducted a recount of the postal ballots, the same will not offer a ground to the petitioner to have the election declared as void. Hence Issue No.8 is answered against the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Satya Narayan Singh vs Election Commission Of India on 6 February, 2013

41. Finally learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that the judgment in the case of Ramesh Rout Vs. Rabindra Nath Rout, (2012) 1 SCC 762 relied upon by the counsel for the election petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the case of Ramesh Rout(supra) the symbol allotment form in original was available when the nomination paper was presented and therefore, presumption was drawn that the original might have been lost when nomination form was sent for preparing the photostat copy. In the present case, it is admitted position that Form 26 which is filed along with nomination paper was not supported by an affidavit at the time of presentation of nomination paper, which defect was not cured until 3 P.M. of the last date for filing of nomination paper.
Patna High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 1 - V N Sinha - Full Document

Dr.P.Saravanan vs Bose A.K. (Deceased) on 22 March, 2019

65. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down law particularly in Para 13 of Symbols Order that non-compliance of the said condition would lead the defective in substantial nature, such nominations shall be rejected at scrutiny itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Ramesh Rout v. Ranindra Noth Rout reported in 2012 (1) SCC 762, the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder :-
Madras High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next