Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.22 seconds)The Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971
Section 60B in The Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 60A in The Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Manda Jaganath vs K.S.Rathnam & Ors on 16 April, 2004
But, I am of the view that such power cannot be exercised in the present context to set aside an election declared by the competent authority, viz., the first respondent. If the election of the petitioner declared by the first respondent as unopposed is invalid due to the unlawful rejection of the nomination of respondents 5 and 6, it is for the competent forum constituted under the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 to declare the same and not for this Court. This view is fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in Manda Jaganath v. K.S.Rathnam and others, [2004] 7 SCC 492, wherein, while considering a case where the Returning Officer has rejected the form and treated a candidate as an independent candidate, it was held that such rejection cannot be challenged in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that can be agitated only before a duly constituted election tribunal.
M/S Prestige Lights Ltd vs State Bank Of India on 20 August, 2007
He would rely upon the decision in Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India, [2007] 8 SCC 449 to substantiate his contention that suppression of material facts would entail dismissal of the writ petition.
N.P. Ponnuswami vs Returning Officer, ... on 21 January, 1952
"24. It may be noticed that the petition by Kamal Sharma was filed on 6-2-2000 and the same was allowed by the Election Commission the very next day i.e. on 7-2-2000 by which a direction was issued to the Returning Officer to hold a fresh scrutiny. There is nothing on record to indicate nor it appears probable that before passing the order, the Election Commission issued any notice to Bachan Singh. Apparently, the order was passed behind his back. The order of the Election Commission to the effect that the Returning Officer shall take further consequential steps as may become necessary, by treating all earlier proceedings in relation to the said candidates, as void ab initio and redraw the list of validly nominated candidates, could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to Bachan Singh. That apart, it has been held by a catena of decisions of this Court that once the nomination paper of a candidate is rejected, the Act provides for only one remedy, that remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the election is over, and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage. (See N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64, Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., [1978] 1 SCC 405 and Election Commission of India v. Shivaji, [1988] 1 SCC 277.) Therefore, the order passed by the Election Commission on 7-2-2000 was not only illegal but was also without jurisdiction and the respondent Kamal Sharma can get no advantage from the same. The inference drawn and the findings recorded by the High Court on the basis of the order of the Election Commission, therefore, cannot be sustained."