Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
M/S Binani Cement vs . State Of Rajasthan & Ors. on 19 January, 2015 cites

N.P. Ponnuswami vs Returning Officer, Namakkal ... on 21 January, 1952

39. In the present case, the impugned Ordinance was promulgated on 20.12.2014 and the election programme was announced by the Rajasthan State Election Commission on 24.12.2014, which provides for the elections in three phases for the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State of Rajasthan, and for which, first notification was issued on 03.01.2015. Article 243-O prohibits any interference in the elections, once elections have 4 been notified. The principles laid down in Election Commission of India Through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.(supra), reiterating the principles laid down by a Six Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Ors.(supra), Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 581, and in S.T. Muthusami Vs. K.Natarajan and Ors.(30) (supra), clearly prohibit the Court from interfering in the election process, once it has started.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 830 - Full Document

S.T. Muthusami vs K. Natarajan & Ors on 20 January, 1988

In para 13 of the judgment in S.T. Muthusami Vs. K.Natarajan and Ors.(supra), the Supreme Court, following the aforesaid judgments, accepted the opinion expressed by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court that though no legislature can impose limitations on the constitutional powers of the Courts, it is a sound exercise of discretion to bear in mind the policy of the legislature to have disputes about these special rights, and to resolve election disputes after the elections are over. The writ petitions should not be lightly entertained in such class of cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 314 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Election Commission Of India Through ... vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 30 August, 2000

39. In the present case, the impugned Ordinance was promulgated on 20.12.2014 and the election programme was announced by the Rajasthan State Election Commission on 24.12.2014, which provides for the elections in three phases for the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State of Rajasthan, and for which, first notification was issued on 03.01.2015. Article 243-O prohibits any interference in the elections, once elections have 4 been notified. The principles laid down in Election Commission of India Through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.(supra), reiterating the principles laid down by a Six Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Ors.(supra), Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 581, and in S.T. Muthusami Vs. K.Natarajan and Ors.(30) (supra), clearly prohibit the Court from interfering in the election process, once it has started.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 583 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

39. In the present case, the impugned Ordinance was promulgated on 20.12.2014 and the election programme was announced by the Rajasthan State Election Commission on 24.12.2014, which provides for the elections in three phases for the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State of Rajasthan, and for which, first notification was issued on 03.01.2015. Article 243-O prohibits any interference in the elections, once elections have 4 been notified. The principles laid down in Election Commission of India Through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.(supra), reiterating the principles laid down by a Six Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Ors.(supra), Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 581, and in S.T. Muthusami Vs. K.Natarajan and Ors.(30) (supra), clearly prohibit the Court from interfering in the election process, once it has started.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1