Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.29 seconds)
Pravinji Shakraji Thakore And 3 Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And 4 Ors. on 15 May, 2008 cites

Jagjit Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 11 December, 2006

11. It is held by the Designated Officer that in this case, there is no split in the original political party. Undisputedly, INC [I] is a national level party. There was no evidence before the Designated Officer that there was split at national level nor even at State level in the political party, i.e. INC [I], nor was there any split in that very party at district level. The Designated Officer has considered the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. and Rajendra Singh Rana and Ors. v. Swami Prasad Maurya and the observations made by the Apex Court therein. It emerges from the record that on 17th October, 2007, the application signed by 5 members [4 petitioners + Kunverben Chaudhary] was sent to the District Development Officer which was received by him, but in couple of hours, one of these 5 members, namely, Kunverben Chaudhari addressed and sent a letter to District Development Officer, Gandhinagar contending that she has not signed any letter addressed, forming a separate group nor she is part of Gandhi Jilla Vikas Manch. Affidavit of Kunverben Chaudhari sent along with application dated 17th October, 2007, is of 15th October, 2007. Therefore, on the day on which Kunverben Chaudhari affirmed an affidavit, application dated 17th October, 2007 was not even prepared. Signature on the application dated 17th October, 2007 has been seriously disputed and the Designated Officer, therefore, was authorized to scrutinize the allegations and counter allegations as to genuineness of signature of Kunverben Chaudhari in the application dated 17th October, 2007. The letter written by Kunverben Chaudhari, expresses categorical denial of fact that she was party in moving the application of forming a separate group. She has expressed her ignorance about the letter. It is also declared in the said letter that she has not joined any separate group nor has she signed the application. It is alleged by Kunverben Chaudhari that somebody might have forg d her signature to create a document. She has also declared that she is loyal to the INC [I] and will remain with INC [I] party.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 139 - Full Document

Sri Rajendra Singh Rana & Ors vs Swami Prasad Maurya & Ors on 14 February, 2007

11. It is held by the Designated Officer that in this case, there is no split in the original political party. Undisputedly, INC [I] is a national level party. There was no evidence before the Designated Officer that there was split at national level nor even at State level in the political party, i.e. INC [I], nor was there any split in that very party at district level. The Designated Officer has considered the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. and Rajendra Singh Rana and Ors. v. Swami Prasad Maurya and the observations made by the Apex Court therein. It emerges from the record that on 17th October, 2007, the application signed by 5 members [4 petitioners + Kunverben Chaudhary] was sent to the District Development Officer which was received by him, but in couple of hours, one of these 5 members, namely, Kunverben Chaudhari addressed and sent a letter to District Development Officer, Gandhinagar contending that she has not signed any letter addressed, forming a separate group nor she is part of Gandhi Jilla Vikas Manch. Affidavit of Kunverben Chaudhari sent along with application dated 17th October, 2007, is of 15th October, 2007. Therefore, on the day on which Kunverben Chaudhari affirmed an affidavit, application dated 17th October, 2007 was not even prepared. Signature on the application dated 17th October, 2007 has been seriously disputed and the Designated Officer, therefore, was authorized to scrutinize the allegations and counter allegations as to genuineness of signature of Kunverben Chaudhari in the application dated 17th October, 2007. The letter written by Kunverben Chaudhari, expresses categorical denial of fact that she was party in moving the application of forming a separate group. She has expressed her ignorance about the letter. It is also declared in the said letter that she has not joined any separate group nor has she signed the application. It is alleged by Kunverben Chaudhari that somebody might have forg d her signature to create a document. She has also declared that she is loyal to the INC [I] and will remain with INC [I] party.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 53 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu And Others on 18 February, 1992

15. Submissions of Mr. Tushar Mehta, appearing for the respondent No. 3 are mostly as per the affidavits submitted by the respondent No. 3, i.e. first affidavit in reply and second affidavit in reply. He has mainly placed reliance upon two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. and other two decisions, i.e. in the case of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachilihu and Ors. reported in 1992 Supp [2] Supreme Court Cases 651 and in the case of Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India and Ors. . However, he has fairly accepted that these decisions were considered by the Apex Court in subsequent two decisions relied upon by him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 75 - Cited by 173 - Full Document

Sadashiv H. Patil vs Vithal D. Teke & Ors.!Ashok Y. Patil & ... on 31 August, 2000

39. Mr. Oza has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sadashiv H. Patil v. Vithal D. Teke and Ors. . Facts of the said decision are materially different. Mr. Oza has taken me through the facts of the cited decision by reading paras 9 to 15. For the sake of convenience, it will be proper for the Court to reproduce the relevant paras- 12 and 15 hereunder.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 71 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1