Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)
Udaysingh S/O Sardarsingh Rajput vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 9 January, 2007 cites

Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh vs Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council & ... on 27 October, 2004

In case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and Ors. (supra) though, Dr. Mahachandra Prasad was elected to Legislative Council on ticket of Indian National Congress, yet had contested the Parliamentary election as an independent candidate. The Apex Court held that he thereby incurred disqualification within the meaning of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court held further that non-supply of the copy of the letter of leader of Congress party to him would be of no consequence. The Apex Court further held that the procedure contemplated in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 pertaining to verification of the reference petition is of directory nature. It is held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 91 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Ravi S. Naik vs Union Of India on 9 February, 1994

In case of Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India and Ors. , the Apex Court held that the expression "voluntarily given up his membership" is not synonymous with resignation. It is held that even in the absence of formal resignation from membership an inference can be drawn from the conduct Page 0186 of a member that he has voluntarily given up his membership of the political party to which he belongs. The conduct of the petitioner, in contesting Legislative Assembly election as an independent candidate is surely indicative of his state of mind. By his conduct, he impliedly declared that he had given membership of the Shivsena party.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 144 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Sadashiv H. Patil vs Vithal D. Teke & Ors.!Ashok Y. Patil & ... on 31 August, 2000

7. Mr. Dhorde, learned Counsel heavily relied on Sadashiv H. Patil v. Vithal D.Teke and Ors. 2001 [1] Maharashtra Law Journal 312. The Apex Court held in the given case that a rigorous compliance with the provisions of the M.L.A.M.D. Act and the Rules must be shown to have taken place while dealing with a reference Under Section 7 of the said Act. That was a case which fell Under Section 3(1)(b) of the said Act. The penalty of disqualification on account of disobedience to the whip or directions of the political party in the House is covered by Section 3(1)(b). So, if a councillor or member votes or abstains from voting in any meeting of the Zilla Parishad, contrary to any direction issued by the political party then question of such disqualification may arise for consideration. In such a case the specific averments regarding non-compliance of the directions or whip, service of the whip on the member and other requirements under the Rules are supposed to be duly established. The Apex Court held that a finding as to disqualification has the effect of unseating a person from an elected office held by him pursuant to his victory at the polls in accordance with the democratic procedure of constituting a local authority. The Apex Court observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 71 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 Next