Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 25 September, 2001
In 2001(8) SCC 509 (Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami(Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra) it is held that the High Court should not stay continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral rules. It is further held therein that once the result of the election is declared it would be open to the appellant therein to change the election of the Returning candidate by means of Election Petition before the Election Tribunal. In AIR 2016 4 SCC 429 (Shaji K.Joseph v. v.Viswanath), the Apex Court has held at paragraph No.15 as follows:
Section 81 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Election Commission Of India Through ... vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 30 August, 2000
In 2000(8) SCC 216 (Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar), another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been observed at paragraph No.32 as follows:
Madan Lal vs Hira Singh Pal on 14 July, 1967
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on AIR 1968 Delhi 110 (Madan Lal v. Hira Singhh Pal) which has arisen out of an Election Petition filed under Sections 81 and 85 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the issue framed by the Court therein was as to whether the nomination papers filed by the petitioner therein were improperly and illegally rejected by the Returning Officer and if so, the election of the respondent is liable to be declared void on that ground. Therefore, it is evident that the said decision arising out of the Election Petition cannot be pressed into service at this stage, that too, in the present writ petition, especially, when such decision was made undoubtedly, in pursuant to conduct of trial. Certainly, the correctness or otherwise of the merits of the order passed by the 2nd respondent has to be tested by the writ petitioner only by filing the Election Petition in the manner known to law after declaration of the result.
Ram Bhual vs Ambika Singh on 29 September, 2005
16. The other decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2005(12) SCC 121 (Ram Bhual v. Ambika Singh) is also a case arising out of an Election Petition filed under Section 80 read with Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and hence, the petitioner cannot rely on the same in this Writ Petition.
Prof.I.Elangovan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 27 March, 2008
21. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 7 relied on the decision of this Court reported in 2003(4) CTC 10(Mad.) (Prof.I.Elangovan vs. State of Tamil Nadu) wherein this Court even though has chosen to set aside the order rejecting the nomination of the petitioner therein, has not granted the consequential relief since the election had already started and final list of valid nomination was also declared.