Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)
Ravindra Natubhai Patel vs Satishbhai Parshotambhai Patel on 22 April, 2025 cites

Udey Chand vs Surat Singh And Anr on 9 October, 2009

Be that as it may, the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meghaben Datteshkumar Amin (supra), though without noticing the aforesaid two decisions, is the view interpreting the provisions of 'the Act, 1993' and in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udey Chand (supra), wherein Supreme Court was called upon to consider and determine the very similar such provisions as mentioned in Section 176(4)(a) and (b) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 44 - D K Jain - Full Document

Meghaben Datteshkumar Amin vs The State Election Commission on 26 June, 2018

Be that as it may, the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meghaben Datteshkumar Amin (supra), though without noticing the aforesaid two decisions, is the view interpreting the provisions of 'the Act, 1993' and in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udey Chand (supra), wherein Supreme Court was called upon to consider and determine the very similar such provisions as mentioned in Section 176(4)(a) and (b) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Vadivelu vs Sundaram And Ors on 10 October, 2000

[11] Relying on the several decisions of the Supreme Court as also decision in the case of Vadivelu Vs. Sundaram & Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 3230, in which, the Court has considered that the petitioner who seeks recount should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of invalid votes or improper rejection of valid votes. While specifically dealing with Section 176(4)(a) and (b) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which is almost pari materia to the provisions contained in clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (7) of Section 31 of 'the Act, 1993', the Court held that petition for recount as contemplated in clause (b) of Section 176(4) of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, must contain adequate statement of material facts on which the election petitioner relies in support of his allegation and it must also be supported by some contemporaneous evidence to show irregularity or illegality in Page 27 of 32 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 10:52:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9343/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined the counting. The only difference between the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and 'the Act, 1993' is about powers of the Court under sub-section (3) of Section 31 conducting an inquiry and thereafter, passing an order confirming and / or amending the declared result and setting the election aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 117 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 Next