Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.36 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 60 in The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in The Gujarat University Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Bhavnagar University (Amendment) Act, 1987
Section 14 in The Gujarat University Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Praga Tools Corporation vs Shri C. A. Imanual & Ors on 19 February, 1969
In order to
bring his point home that in donating two amounts,
petitioners had two legal capacities, learned senior
counsel relied on decisions in (i) Praga Tools
Corporation v. C.V. Imanual [AIR 1969 SC 1306], (ii)
Jain Merchants Co-op. Housing Society Limited v.
H.U.F. Of Manubhai Kalyanbhai Shah through its
Manager Harishbhai Manubhai Shah [1995 (1) GLR 19]
and (iii) Dadasaheb Rawal Co-op. Bank of Dondaicha
Ltd. v. Ramesh Jawrilal Jain [2009 Cri.L.J. 67] to
deduce such proposition. He thereafter highlighted the
amended Proviso to Statute 181 to submit that there
was no bar in donating in two different capacities and
becoming voter. He pressed his alternative prayer also
that a different person could be named as
representative voter.
The Gujarat University Act, 1949
Jain Mechants Co-Op. Housing Society ... vs H.U.F. Of Manubhai Kalyanbhai Shah ... on 1 August, 1994
In order to
bring his point home that in donating two amounts,
petitioners had two legal capacities, learned senior
counsel relied on decisions in (i) Praga Tools
Corporation v. C.V. Imanual [AIR 1969 SC 1306], (ii)
Jain Merchants Co-op. Housing Society Limited v.
H.U.F. Of Manubhai Kalyanbhai Shah through its
Manager Harishbhai Manubhai Shah [1995 (1) GLR 19]
and (iii) Dadasaheb Rawal Co-op. Bank of Dondaicha
Ltd. v. Ramesh Jawrilal Jain [2009 Cri.L.J. 67] to
deduce such proposition. He thereafter highlighted the
amended Proviso to Statute 181 to submit that there
was no bar in donating in two different capacities and
becoming voter. He pressed his alternative prayer also
that a different person could be named as
representative voter.
Gujarat University vs N.U. Rajguru And Ors on 10 November, 1987
(Paras 4 and 8)
6.1.1 Laying down the proposition of law, the Apex
Court clearly stated,
"It is well settled that where a statute provides for
election to an office, or an authority or institution
and if it further provides a machinery or forum for
determination of dispute arising out of election, the
aggrieved person should pursue his remedy before the
forum provided by the statute. While considering an
election dispute it must be kept in mind that the right
to vote, contest or dispute election is neither a
fundamental or common law right instead it is a
statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions.
It is not permissible to invoke the jurisdiction of the
High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution by
passing the machinery designated by the Act for
determination of the election dispute. Ordinarily the
remedy provided by the statute must be followed before
the authority designated therein. But there may be
cases where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
may exist to justify by passing the alternative
remedies 1984 (1) 25 Guj LR 349. Reversed." (Para 6)
6.2 The decision in Shri N.U. Rajguru (supra)
came to be followed by Division Bench of this Court in
Rajesh Mahendrabhai Joshi v. Bhavnagar University
[2004(4) GLR 3042]. In consideration therein was a
similar Section 15 of the Bhavnagar University Act,
1978.