Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.53 seconds)The Representation Of The People Act, 1950
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sadashiv H. Patil vs Vithal D. Teke & Ors.!Ashok Y. Patil & ... on 31 August, 2000
So
far as "Sadashiv
Sadashiv H. Patil"
Patil (supra) is concerned,
there was no issue involved regarding the nature of
Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the MLAMD Rules directly and
substantially involved in the said matter. I mean to
say whether Rule 6 (4) is directory or mandatory was
not the issue directly involved and contested. As
against
Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh vs Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council & ... on 27 October, 2004
Singh (supra) deals with pari
materia provisions though the Rules were the inhouse
Rules framed by the Chairman of the Bihar Legislative
Council. That hardly makes any difference.
Section 10 in Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sayyad Tahir Hussain Mainuddin And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 24 August, 2007
another (supra), there is no reference to the case of
"Dr.
Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh"
Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar vs Roop Singh Rathore & Others(And ... on 7 May, 1963
16. In "F.A.
F.A. Sapa Etc. Etc. v. Singora and
others, etc." (AIR 1991 S.C. 1557),
1557) the Apex Court
held that mere defect in verification of the Election
Petition cannot be fatal to its maintainability. The
Apex Court in "Murarka
Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar (in both
appeals) v. Roop Singh Rathore and others" (AIR 1964
S.C. 1545) held that defect in verification in the
Election
Petition can be removed in accordance with
the principles of the Civil Procedure Code. It was
held as a curable defect.