Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 75 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing Charan Lal Sahu & Others vs Giani Zail Singh & Another on 13 December, 1983

Mithilesh Kumar Sinha & Anr vs Returning Officer For Presidential ... on 17 September, 1992

53. On giving our anxious consideration to the reason given by Chandrachud, C.J. in Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh for not making an order of costs while dismissing those petitions in a similar situation filed a decade earlier, we think the further decline during the last decade indicates that mere observations of this kind do not have the desired effect. We are constrained to take the view that some stringent measure like mandatory requirement of security deposit of a reasonable amount for costs for entertaining the election petition is needed to provide some check.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

P.A. Aziz vs Prof. K.V.Thomas on 30 March, 2014

22. Section 79(b) of the Act and Section 13(a) of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 is pari materia. Therefore, the decisions in Charan Lal Sahu v. Shri Fakruddin Ali Ahmed(supra), Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh(supra) and Charan Lal Sahu and another, v. K. R. Narayanan(supra) relating to the term 'candidate' are squarely applicable to the term 'candidate' contained in section 79(b) of the Act also.
Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.A. Aziz vs Prof. K.V.Thomas on 30 March, 2014

22. Section 79(b) of the Act and Section 13(a) of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 is pari materia. Therefore, the decisions in Charan Lal Sahu v. Shri Fakruddin Ali Ahmed(supra), Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh(supra) and Charan Lal Sahu and another, v. K. R. Narayanan(supra) relating to the term 'candidate' are squarely applicable to the term 'candidate' contained in section 79(b) of the Act also.
Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Charan Lal Sahu vs Apj Abdul Kalam & Ors on 11 December, 2002

"As regards the submission urged on behalf of the petitioners regarding the validity of the provisions of Sections 5-B and 5-C as they stood prior to 5-6-1997, it may be stated that the validity of the said provisions has been upheld by this Court in Charan Lal Sahu V. Fakruddin Ali Ahmed; Charan Lal Sahu v S. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy and Charan Lal Sahu V. Giani Zail Singh. Petitioner 1 was a party to all these decisions. The challenge to the validity of the amendments introduced by the Ordinance and the Amendment Act has been negatived by this Court in the three writ petitions referred to above, two out of which were filed by Petitioner 1. The petitioners have urged that in this petition the challenge to the validity of Section 5-B is based on the ground that it violates the principle of secrecy of ballot incorporated in Article 55 (3) of the Constitution and that this ground has not been considered in the earlier decisions. We do not find any merit in this contention. The requirement in Section 5-B (1)(a) about the nomination paper being subscribed by a particular number of electors as proposers and seconders does not, in any way, involve the infringement of the secrecy of ballot at the election inasmuch as the elector who has subscribed the nomination paper of a person as a proposer or as a seconder is free to cast his vote in favour of any candidate and is not bound to vote for the person whose nomination paper he has subscribed as a proposer or seconder. The identity of the candidate in whose favour he has cast his vote is not be disclosed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 5 - A Bhan - Full Document

Charan Lal Sahu vs Dr. Apj Abdul Kalam & Ors on 11 December, 2002

"As regards the submission urged on behalf of the petitioners regarding the validity of the provisions of Sections 5-B and 5-C as they stood prior to 5-6-1997, it may be stated that the validity of the said provisions has been upheld by this Court in Charan Lal Sahu V. Fakruddin Ali Ahmed; Charan Lal Sahu v S. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy and Charan Lal Sahu V. Giani Zail Singh. Petitioner 1 was a party to all these decisions. The challenge to the validity of the amendments introduced by the Ordinance and the Amendment Act has been negatived by this Court in the three writ petitions referred to above, two out of which were filed by Petitioner 1. The petitioners have urged that in this petition the challenge to the validity of Section 5-B is based on the ground that it violates the principle of secrecy of ballot incorporated in Article 55 (3) of the Constitution and that this ground has not been considered in the earlier decisions. We do not find any merit in this contention. The requirement in Section 5-B (1)(a) about the nomination paper being subscribed by a particular number of electors as proposers and seconders does not, in any way, involve the infringement of the secrecy of ballot at the election inasmuch as the elector who has subscribed the nomination paper of a person as a proposer or as a seconder is free to cast his vote in favour of any candidate and is not bound to vote for the person whose nomination paper he has subscribed as a proposer or seconder. The identity of the candidate in whose favour he has cast his vote is not be disclosed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr.Tim Boyd vs Mr.Kesiraju Krishna Phani on 22 July, 2015

39. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/D10 further relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1984 (1) SCC 390 (Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Giani Zail Singh), to contend that the present challenge by way of filing the suit, is not maintainable and only the defeated candidate can challenge the same, that too by filing an Election Petition. A peusal of the above decision of the Apex Court shows that the subject matter "Election" therein was governed under the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act and that under Section 14-A therein, an Election Petition can be filed only by a person who was a candidate in the election. Therefore, it is evident that there is a specific bar under the above statute itself for filing a suit challenging the election, that too by a third party. Here, in this case, the facts and circumstances disclose that no such specific bar is contemplated either under the Bye-laws of the first defendant-Society or under the relevant statute, namely the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. Therefore, the above decision of the Apex Court is not helping the applicant/D10 in any manner.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 6 - K R Baabu - Full Document

Tej Bahadur vs Shri Narendra Modi on 24 November, 2020

12. Thus, the occasion for a person to make a claim that he was duly nominated can arise only if his nomination paper complies with the statutory requirements which govern the filing of nomination papers and not otherwise. The claim that he was ‘duly’ nominated necessarily implies and involves the claim that his nomination paper conformed to the requirements of the statute. Therefore, a contestant whose nomination paper is not subscribed by at least ten electors as proposers and ten electors as seconders, as required by Section 5-B (1)(a) of the Act, cannot claim to have been duly nominated, any more than a contestant who had not subscribed his assent to his own nomination can. The claim of a contestant that he was duly nominated must arise out of his compliance with the provisions of the Act. It cannot arise out of the violation of the Act. Otherwise, a person who had not filed any nomination paper at all but who had only informed the Returning Officer orally that he desired to contest the election could also content that he ‘claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate’.” Applying the above decision to the present case it was necessary for the appellant to show that his nomination paper conformed to the provisions of Section 33(3) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 7 - S A Bobde - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next