Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (3.01 seconds)Article 243O in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 4 in The U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Rishipal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 3 September, 2014
(f) Whether, the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Rishipal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) has laid down the correct law?
L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 18 March, 1997
42. Now, Question-(a) pertains to the law laid down by the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) which, in our opinion, could have been read and duly applied by the Division Bench for answering the question before it, i.e., as to whether it would entertain the writ petition in the light of the notification issued by the State Election Commission for elections of the Zila Panchayat and the bar under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India is attracted or not. The said issue though has been discussed in few paragraphs of the reference order and some views have been expressed by the Division Bench in paragraph Nos.'20' & '21' of the reference order but whether the said question arose for consideration in the facts and circumstances of these cases, i.e. in the nature of the controversy and the issues before it or not, is not clear.
Digvijay Mote vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 August, 1993
In Digvijiay Mote Vs. Union of India9, Anugrah Narain Singh & another Vs. State of U.P. & others10, C. Subrahmanyam Vs. K. Ramanjaneyullu & others11, it is held that where non-compliance of provision of the Act, governing the election is a ground for election petition, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not have been entertained.
Anugrah Narain Singh & Anr vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 10 September, 1996
In Digvijiay Mote Vs. Union of India9, Anugrah Narain Singh & another Vs. State of U.P. & others10, C. Subrahmanyam Vs. K. Ramanjaneyullu & others11, it is held that where non-compliance of provision of the Act, governing the election is a ground for election petition, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not have been entertained.
C. Subrahmanyam vs K. Ramanjaneyullu And Ors. on 13 March, 1996
In Digvijiay Mote Vs. Union of India9, Anugrah Narain Singh & another Vs. State of U.P. & others10, C. Subrahmanyam Vs. K. Ramanjaneyullu & others11, it is held that where non-compliance of provision of the Act, governing the election is a ground for election petition, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not have been entertained.
Ch. Tika Ramji & Others, Etc vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 April, 1956
In the case of Tika Ram and others versus State of U.P and others12, the Apex Court has observed that a decision does not become precedent unless a question is directly raised and considered therein, so also it does not become the law declared unless the question is actually decided upon.