Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)
Smt. Shahista vs State Of U.P. & Others on 17 March, 2011 cites

Jaspal Singh Arora vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 21 July, 1997

In Jaspal Singh Arora Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 594 and Gurdeep Singh Dhillon Vs. Satpal & Ors., (2006) 10 SCC 616 it was observed that short-cut of filing writ petition and invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226/227 is not permissible. The only remedy available to challenge the election is by raising election dispute under legal statutes.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 70 - Full Document

K. Venkatachalam vs A. Swamickan And Anr on 26 April, 1999

The Supreme Court observed that the judgement in K. Venkatachalam (Supra) is not applicable in the situation and there was no general proposition that even if there is specific remedy of filing an election petition, the disputed questions of fact regarding caste of a person can be decided under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. There was another distinguishing feature in K. Venkatachalam. In that case there was clear finding that elected person therein had played fraud with the Constitution in as much as he knew that his name was not in the electoral roll of that constituency and he impersonated for some other person taking benefit of the similarity of names. The Supreme Court held in Kurapati Maria Das that where the remedy of election petition is provided under the local laws, in view of the bar created by Art.243 ZG (b), writ petition should not be entertained and further disputed questions of fact regarding caste, status cannot be looked into in a writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 209 - Full Document

Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of ... on 27 February, 1953

17. The Supreme Court also referred to K. Venkatachalam Vs. A. Swamickan & Anr., (1999) 2 SCR 857, where writ of quo warranto was sought against the member of legislative assembly on the ground that his name was not found in the voters list and in Election Commission of India Vs. Saka Venkata Rao, (1953) 4 SCR 1144 in which considering Art.192 the Supreme Court observed that Art.226 is couched in widest possible language and unless there is a clear bar to the jurisdiction of the High Court, the power under Art.226 can be exercised.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 357 - M P Sastri - Full Document
1