Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (3.35 seconds)
Documents citing Jibontara Ghatowar vs Sarbananda Sonowal And Ors on 9 May, 2003

Anand Mohan vs Md. Anwarul Haque And Ors. on 29 January, 2004

He has further argued that election petitioner has been successful to bring on record that irregularities were committed in initial counting and final counting which is apparent from the facts that there is variation of figures shown to have been counted in initial counting and counted at the time of final counting, a number of Part-II of Form-16 have not been filled up, some Part-II of Form-16 have not been correctly filled up and round wise result sheets of 8th round of Belsand Assembly Constituency Segment has not been properly filled up and all these facts taken together make out a case for recount because the aforesaid irregularities show that there was breach of statutory duties cast on the RO. In support of his argument he has relied upon a decision of Apex Court in the case of Jiobontara Ghatowar v. Sarbananda Sonowal and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 452, This case was in respect of rejection of some ballot papers which were in favour of election petitioner and the RO did not consider the prayer of petitioner for recount. Under these circumstances, it was held that the Returning Officer failed to discharge his statutory duty cast on him in deciding the prayer of petitioner for recount. So, under the circumstances that a case for recount was made out on the basis of averments made by election petitioner in his election petition and there was breach of statutory duties cast on the Returning Officer under Section 63 of Conduct of Election Rules, it was held that a clear case for directing recount was made out and it was further held that election petitioner was not indulging in a roving inquiry or trying to fish out the materials.
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M L Visa - Full Document

Rajendra Prasad Nautiyal And Etc. vs Krishna Kumar Bangwal And Ors. on 21 August, 2006

In Jibontara Ghatowar v. Sarbananda Sonowal wherein a case was made out that 824 ballot papers were rejected contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules and in violation of the law laid down by this Court in Arun Kumar Bose v. Mohd. Furkan Ansari this Court held that the High Court was in error in refusing to direct the recounting of votes.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R Tandon - Full Document

Hiraman Ratan Baisane vs Election Returning Officer And Ors. on 11 August, 2006

He submitted that the learned Judge has arrived at the above conclusion by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jibontara Ghatowar v. Sarbananda, . Mr. Shah submitted that the said decision is distinguishable on facts because in that case the R.O. had failed to decide the application for recount, whereas, in the present the application for recount was rejected by the R.O. and the same was not the subject-matter of the election petition. Mr. Shah submitted that the entire judgment is vitiated by non-application of mind, application of wrong test and overlooking the first principles relating to law of elections settled since long. Accordingly Mr. Shah submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - J P Devadhar - Full Document

Dr. Bharath Shetty Y. S/O Dr. Y. Chandra ... vs The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University ... on 22 March, 2007

The bar in statute 5 is not to correct the electoral rolls alter the last date fixed for receipt of nominations. An ineligible person should not be made a member of the academic body of the University like the Senate, which is responsible for making policies of the University. I am of the considered view that even if an objection was not raised for inclusion of a person in the electoral rolls, there can be no bar for raising an election dispute later on. An election dispute cannot be decided on concessions contrary to law. (See Jibontara Ghatowar v. Sarbananda Sonowal and Ors. ).
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S A Nazeer - Full Document

Mubarak Master vs Hansraj Tanwar And Ors. on 14 May, 2004

On merits also, he has placed reliance on Supreme Court's judgments in Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Malanger and Ors., (2000) 1 SCC 261; T.A. Ahammed Kabeer v. A.A. Azeez and Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 650 and Jibontara Ghatowar v. Sarbananda Sonowal and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 452, and contended that the order passed by the Court below is just and proper and need not be interfered by this Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.P.Mohammed Musthafa @ ... vs Najeeb Kanthapuram on 8 August, 2024

19. Relying on the aforesaid dictum it was submitted by the learned senior counsel for the first respondent that as per Rule 54A (4), the RO had no option but to reject the 348 votes for the defects stated therein and so rejected the same. Therefore, a vote E.P.No.4 of 2021 53 2024:KER:60356 which has been rejected as void by the RO cannot be declared valid by this Court. It was also submitted that the dictum in Jibontara Ghatowar (Supra) relied on by the election petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand as the said decision specifically relates to Rule 56(2). A proviso like the first proviso to Rule 56(1) is not available in sub-rule (4) to Rule 54A and therefore the said decision cannot be applied, goes the argument.
Kerala High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M. Chinnasamy vs K.C. Palanisamy & Ors on 21 November, 2003

In Jibontara Ghatowar vs. Sarbananda Sonowal and Others [(2003) 6 SCC 452], wherein a case was made out that 824 ballot papers were rejected contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 63 of the Conduct of Elections Rules and in violation of the law laid down by this Court in Arun Kumar Bose vs. Mohd. Furkan Ansari [(1984) 1 SCC 91], this Court held that the High Court was in error in refusing to direct the recounting of votes.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 99 - Full Document
1   2 Next