Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)All India Anna Dravida Munnetra ... vs The State Election Commissioner on 12 January, 2007
In view of the above, the judgment in the case of All
India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State Election
Commissioner (supra) would have no application as a direction
therein in the concluding paragraph was in reference to the elections
to local bodies and not a private body.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 29A in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2005
In the case on hand, the second respondent is not
discharging duties of the nature discussed by the Apex Court in the
case of Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra) or even in the
case of Zee Telefilms Ltd v. Union of India (supra).
The Representation of the People Act, 1951
Board Of Control For Cricket In India vs Cricket Association Of Bihar . on 29 September, 2015
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given further reference
____________
Page 7 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26171 of 2021
of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Board of Control
for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar and others,
(2015) 3 SCC 251, wherein also the objection to the maintainability
of the writ petition against the BCCI was raised. The Apex Court did
not accept the objection, rather the writ petition was maintained
keeping in mind the affairs of the BCCI not only to select the cricket
team to represent the country, but even other functions of the BCCI.
Those functions were taken to be public functions and thereby the
writ petition was held maintainable. The expression "State"
appearing in Article 12 of the Constitution of India was given
meaning. It is the case of the petitioner that the said judgment is
squarely applicable to the present case.
Article 243 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 324 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1