Ram Gopal vs Up-Ziladhikari And Ors. on 14 July, 2004
14. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Beli Ram (supra) has been followed by this Court in the case of Smt. Maya (supra) and Smt. Bhoori (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.36 seconds)Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Shri Ram Sarover vs Smt. Uma Devi W/O Shri Rajesh Kumar, Smt. ... on 29 February, 2008
16. Shri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari has relied upon judgements in Smt. Hazzee v. Prescribed Authority and Ors. 2003 (94) RD 108; Sabir v. Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar and Ors. 2003 (50) ALR 642; M. Chinnasami v. K.C. Palanisamv and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 541; Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge Ghazipur and Ors. 1985 ALJ 615 (Full Bench); Hamraj v. Sub Divisional Officer 1992 RD 460; Dhanai Prasad v. Sub Divisional Magistrate Chunar, District Mirzapur 1974 ALJ 371; Tanaii Ramchandra Nimhan v. Swati Vinavak Nimhan ; Smt. Susma Devi v. State of UP and Ors. 2008 (104) RD 57 and Raifaqat Hussain v. Rama Shanker Kaushik 1986 ALJ 1446 and Anwar Ali v. Prescribed Authority 2002 (2) AWC 954.
Anoop Singh vs Ranjeet Singh & Another on 29 January, 2010
The law laid
down by this court in the case of Smt. Hazzee Vs. Prescribed
Authority and Others 2003 Vol.1994 RD 108 was also considered
wherein the court has summarised the law with regard to sufficiency
of pleadings and evidence for recount of votes.
Bharti vs Rashmi on 28 August, 2024
5. It was further submitted that even though there were
specific directions of this Court in the earlier round of litigation to
follow the procedure as prescribed under Rule 11 of The M.P.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 13-09-2024
11:01:40 AM
4
Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and
Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 which specifically
lays down that trial of election petition shall be in accordance with
the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
as it is applicable to the trial of suits, proper issues on the basis of
pleadings of parties were not framed, which had prejudiced the case
of petitioner since while answering issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5, it was held
that since no irregularity and illegality is found to have been
committed which would allow re-counting and considering keeping
in view of secrecy of ballet which is sacrosanct in democracy, there
existed no prima facie case for re-counting when there was no issue
framed whether in the facts of the case recount can be ordered and in
that regard reliance was placed in the matter of Smt. Hazzee Vs.
Prescribed Authority reported in 2000 (8) SCC 355 and was
argued that when no issue regarding re-counting of the votes was
framed, leaving the parties to read between the lines and to analyze
the crux of the issue framed and thereafter lead their evidence
appears to be wholly illegal.
1