Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)
Avtar Singh Hit vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management ... on 18 October, 2006 cites

Avtar Singh Hit vs Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management ... on 23 January, 2006

3. The controversy raised in all the four appeals is identical and for the sake of convenience we will refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No. 4532 of 2006 (arising out SLP (C) No. 5188 of 2006) (Avtar Singh Hit vs. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee and others). The principal issue raised is regarding the validity of the election held on 19.12.2005 for electing the members of the Executive Board of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'DSGMC'). In order to understand the controversy involved it is necessary to make a brief reference to the relevant statutory provisions.
Delhi High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 2 - V Sen - Full Document

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

17. It is well settled principle that where elections are conducted in accordance with the provisions of a statute and the statute also provides a remedy of settlement of election disputes by filing an election petition before a tribunal, it is that remedy alone which should be availed of and recourse cannot be taken to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. This view has been taken in series of decisions rendered by this Court. The earliest decision was rendered in N.P. Ponnuswami vs. The Returning Officer AIR 1952 SC 64 by a Bench of six learned Judges. In this case the nomination paper of the appellant for election to Madras Legislative Assembly was rejected by the Returning Officer. The appellant challenged the rejection of the nomination paper by filing a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Returning Officer on account of Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which says that no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. In appeal this Court examined the question whether the writ petition would be maintainable at the initial state against an order rejecting the nomination paper. Certain observations made in para 9 of the reports are relevant and they are being reproduced below: -
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

In Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851, it was held that if during the process of election, at any intermediate or final stage, the entire poll has been wrongly cancelled and a fresh poll has been wrongly ordered, that is a matter which may be agitated after declaration of the result on the basis of the fresh poll, by questioning the election in the appropriate forum by means of an election petition in accordance with law. The same view has been taken in regard to the elections held in accordance with some statutory provision where Article 329(b) of the Constitution is not applicable and they are not governed by Representation of the People Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document

K.K. Shrivastava And Ors. vs Bhupendra Kumar Jain And Ors. on 15 March, 1977

In K.K. Shrivastava vs. Bhupendra Kumar Jain AIR 1978 SC 1703, the dispute related to election to Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh under the Indian Advocates Act and Rule 31 of Election Rules framed by Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh provided that all disputes arising under the Rule shall be decided by a tribunal to be known as an election tribunal. The defeated candidate approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the election which was allowed by the High Court. This Court set aside the judgment of the High Court with the following observations: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 63 - V R Iyer - Full Document

S.T. Muthusami vs K. Natarajan & Ors on 20 January, 1988

There are several other decisions where the same view has been taken. S.T. Muthusami vs. K. Natarajan AIR 1988 SC 616 is a case relating to election to the office of Chairman of a panchayat union under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 where it was held that the parties who are aggrieved by the result of the election can question the validity of an election by an election petition which is an effective alternative remedy and it is not appropriate for the High Court to interfere with the election process.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 314 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

C. Subrahmanyam vs K. Ramanjaneyullu And Ors. on 13 March, 1996

C. Subrahmanyam vs. K. Ramanjaneyullu 1998 (8) SCC 703 is a case relating to election under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act and in a short judgment it was observed that the main question for decision being the non-compliance of a provision of the Act which is a ground for an election petition in Rule 12 framed under the Act, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not have been entertained for this purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 120 - Full Document

Umesh Shivappa Ambi And Ors. vs Angadi Shekara Basappa And Ors. on 6 March, 1998

Umesh Shivappa Ambi vs. Angadi Shekara Basappa 1998 (4) SCC 529 is a case relating to election of President, Vice-President and Chairman, etc., under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, wherein the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution set aside the order by which the nomination of the first respondent therein was rejected. This Court reversed the judgment of the High Court with the following observation :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 55 - Full Document

Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs Additional Member, Board Of Revenue, ... on 19 October, 1962

In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar AIR 1963 SC 786, it was observed that where in a petition for a writ of certiorari made to the High Court, only the tribunal whose order was sought to be quashed was made a party but the persons who were parties before the lower tribunal and in whose favour the impugned order was passed were not joined as parties; the writ petition was incompetent and had been rightly rejected by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 470 - Full Document
1   2 Next