Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.38 seconds)
Sukeshbhai Meghjibhai Bavalia vs State Election Commission on 26 February, 2021 cites

Prahladdas Khandelwal vs Narendra Kumar Salve on 11 September, 1972

In the said case, a Coordinate Bench of Page 80 of 102 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 04:14:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/3402/2021 CAV JUDGMENT this Court referred to and relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prahladdas Khandelwal vs. Narendra Kumar Salave, (1973)2 SCC 104, and held that except for the defects which are permitted to be removed or rectified under the Act and the Rules, the Returning Officer is not empowered to either get the defect rectified or ignore them. We quote the relevant observations thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 13 - A N Grover - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar vs Sunil Kumar on 9 February, 1999

52. It has further been provided in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra) that the Returning Officer appears to have been labouring under some misconception when he recorded that the political party "cannot be given further time to change such authorisation after scrutiny". Under the proviso to Section 36(5) of the Act, the scrutiny itself would have been postponed to the adjourned time and, therefore, it was not a case of meeting the objection after scrutiny of the nomination papers. The Returning Officer is not expected to reject a nomination paper without giving an opportunity to the candidate or his representative present at the time of scrutiny to meet an objection capable of being met, particularly where such an opportunity is sought for by the candidate or his representative.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 39 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next