Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)
Bal Krishan And Others vs State Of H.P. And Others on 15 December, 2015 cites

State Of U.P. & Ors.Etc vs Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti & Ors. Etc on 24 March, 1995

(ii) The proposition contained in Clause (i) above is subject to the condition that challenge to the delimitation may be entertained in exceptional cases where no objections were invited and no hearing was given provided that such challenge is made before issue of notification for holding election. {State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti (supra)}
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 558 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Jabir Hussain Nasir Ahmed Boga And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 25 October, 2005

In Jasbir Hussain Nasir Ahmed Boga Vs. State of Gujarat & others, AIR 2006 Gujarat 53, Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that the bar imposed by Article 243-ZG, which is pari materia with the bar under Article 243-O (a) of the Constitution is absolute and the resolution of any dispute pertaining to an election which has the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election shall be postponed until after the completion of the election. The Court shall desist from making any order; interim or otherwise, which has the effect of postponement of the election. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 14, which reads thus:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 64 - R M Doshit - Full Document

Prithvi Raj vs State Election Commission And Ors. on 25 July, 2007

30. Learned five Judges Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Prithvi Raj Vs. State Election Commission, AIR 2007 PH 178, while dealing with the bar of interference by the Court in elections to the Municipality, held that the elections can be called in to question by way of election petition before the authority or tribunal provided by the statute enacted by the State legislature, but this did not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, but its power of judicial review was merely postponed to a stage after the election tribunal had adjudicated upon the election petition.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 167 - Full Document

Lal Chand And Ors. vs State Of Haryana on 25 October, 1983

It also overruled the earlier view of Full Bench in Lal Chand Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 P&H 1, wherein it had been held that Article 243-ZG (b) could be read down and held ultra virus to the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution, it was held that the challenge to an election under Article 226 would be postponed to a time and stage after the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:31:09 :::HCHP 40 conclusion of the "election" and that too by an election petition, the .
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 152 - Full Document

Association Of Res.Of Mhow (Rom) & Anr vs Delimitation Commn.Of India & Ors on 31 March, 2009

31. rt In Association of Residents of Mhow (Rom) Vs. Delimitation Commission of India (2009) 5 SCC 404, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of interference by the Courts in matters of delimitation and in view of clause A of Article 243-O held that the order under the Delimitation Act, 2002 is law made under Article 327 of the Constitution and cannot be called in question in any Court by virtue of Article 329 and therefore, the High Court rightly relied on this short ground, when it summarily dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 praying for writ of certiorari for quashing the notification issued in pursuance of Section 10 (1) of the Act. It was held that:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 92 - B S Reddy - Full Document

N.P. Ponnuswami vs Returning Officer, ... on 21 January, 1952

(1) The word "election" appearing in Article 243-O and the provisions contained in the 1994 Act and the rules framed thereunder bears larger connotation. It embraces and includes all steps commencing from the date of notification by the Competent Authority, whereby the electorates are called upon to elect Pradhans and Up-Pradhans and ending with declaration of result. Reservation of offices of Pradhan and Wards in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Women, preparation, printing and publication of electoral rolls (provisional and final), filing of nomination papers, scrutiny of nomination papers and withdrawal thereof, publication of the list of eligible candidates, allotment of symbols, appointment of election agents, the conduct of poll, counting of votes, declaration of results and all other ancillary steps taken for ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:31:09 :::HCHP 48 the purpose of holding elections fall within the ambit of the term "election". {N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, .
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 605 - S S Ali - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

Namakkal Constituency, Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India v. Shivaji and Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (supra)} (2) (i) The bar contained in Article 243-O, which begins of with non-obstante clause, debars all Courts from entertaining any challenge to law relating to rt delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seat made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K or election to the Panchayats. This bar also operates against the High Court's power of judicial review under Article 226.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Election Commission Of India vs Shivaji & Ors on 10 November, 1987

Namakkal Constituency, Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India v. Shivaji and Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (supra)} (2) (i) The bar contained in Article 243-O, which begins of with non-obstante clause, debars all Courts from entertaining any challenge to law relating to rt delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seat made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K or election to the Panchayats. This bar also operates against the High Court's power of judicial review under Article 226.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 163 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document
1   2 Next