Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (1.26 seconds)

Shri. Saket S. Gokhale vs . Election Commission Of India & Ors. on 3 February, 2023

20. The abovenoted observation is being made, in view of the fact that, the election process has already been set in motion and therefore, apart from a proceeding under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, no other forum can adjudicate in such matters. No special circumstances that, the writ petition has been filed in aid of and in furtherance of the election process, are visible or apparent in any manner, as the petitioner seeks that action be taken against the respondent No. 3, which cannot be said to subserve the election process. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the Senior Counsel for the petitioner that is 13 Election Commission of India through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar (supra) is of no assistance to his case.
Meghalaya High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - H S Thangkhiew - Full Document

Shekhpur Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd & 14 vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 2 March, 2017

5. After having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and considering the documents on record, as also the various decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, the Court is of the opinion that the position of law is well settled that the preparation of electoral rolls is part of election process and the High Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with the same. The Supreme Court in case of Election Commission of India thro. Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar and Ors. (supra) has very succinctly clarified the position of law in this regard, in paragraph 32 which reads as under :-
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Natvarsinh Sardarsinh Mahida vs The Gujarat State Election Commission on 19 February, 2021

In the decision reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216 (Election Commission of India through Secretary vs. Ashok Kumar), the Supreme Court, after referring to the decisions reported in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and N.P.Ponnuswami vs. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and others (AIR 1952 SC 64), has quoted the example cited in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (supra) in paragraph 20 and also suggested that a third category by way of an example where the intervention of the Court other than the Election Tribunal may be required. The statement of law thus made by the Supreme Court is as under in paragraphs 20 and 21:
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Gazala Bi Saddam Shah vs The Collector, Buldhana And Another on 8 July, 2021

(22) In the said Full Bench judgment of this Court, copious reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami (supra), as also subsequent judgments in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. PAGE 20 OF 26 ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2021 06:32:58 ::: WP-85.2021 Corrected-Judgment.odt The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. 7, Election Commission of India through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. 8, and recent judgment in the case of Laxmibai (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Natvarsinh Sardarsinh Mahida vs The Gujarat State Election Commission on 19 February, 2021

In the decision reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216 (Election Commission of India through Secretary vs. Ashok Kumar), the Supreme Court, after referring to the decisions reported in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and N.P.Ponnuswami vs. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and others (AIR 1952 SC 64), has quoted the example cited in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (supra) in paragraph 20 and also suggested that a third category by way of an example where the intervention of the Court other than the Election Tribunal may be required. The statement of law thus made by the Supreme Court is as under in paragraphs 20 and 21:
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next