Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.31 seconds)
Vijay Shrirangsa Kadkan And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 31 March, 2016 cites

Bar Council Of Delhi And Anr. Etc vs Surjeet Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 1 May, 1980

6. Mr. Dhorde, refers to a decision of the Supreme Court, rendered in the case of "Bar Counsel of Delhi and Another V. Surjeet Singh" reported in AIR 1980 SC 1612, which was a case wherein the electoral roll, pursuant to proviso, which was found to be ultra vires of the Delhi Bar Council Election Rules, had been invalidated by the Supreme Court and in the circumstances considered that an electoral roll prepared with such proviso is completely vitiated and shall be liable to be set aside, further finding that an alternate remedy in respect of said elections held on basis of an electoral roll under a provision which is void and ultra vires, relating to preparation of electoral rolls, in such cases, would not detain exercise of powers of the Court, particularly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court had considered that Rule 34 of the Bar Council of Delhi Elections Rules, 1968 was not a remedy at all. The Supreme Court appears to have considered that if alternate remedy fully covers challenge to the election then that remedy and that remedy alone must be resorted to even though it involves the challenge to election of all successful candidates. But, if the nature and the ground of challenge of the whole election are such that the ::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:16:21 ::: {8} wp3021-16 alternate remedy is not remedy in the eye of law to cover the challenge or, in any event, is not adequate and efficacious remedy, then the remedy of writ petition to challenge the whole election is still available. Thus, that case appears to be with reference to the proviso which was found to be ultra vires and that an election Tribunal in such cases would not be able to declare the provision to be ultra vires. So the supreme court appears to have ruled, as referred to above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 98 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Vasantrao Annasaheb Ubale And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 12 February, 2001

In said case, under the amendment a necessity of passage of two years as a member before being considered as a voter is mandatory and in that case the division bench appears to have ruled that the persons who were on the date of amendment otherwise eligible as voter, their voting right would not be affected by amendment and the amendment would be applicable prospectively. This citation has been relied upon, perhaps to emphasise that all the existing members would have a right to vote to the first elections after 2013 and ineligibility if any ::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:16:21 ::: {9} wp3021-16 incurred under the amendment in 2013, would not hold them from being voter, having regard to the proviso.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 6 - S B Mhase - Full Document
1   2 Next