Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.22 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 16 in The Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
The Gujarat University Act, 1949
Section 3 in The Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
K.K. Shrivastava And Ors. vs Bhupendra Kumar Jain And Ors. on 15 March, 1977
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court that where even whole of the elections are sought to be challenged it would be no ground to by-pass the statutory provisions for resolving the election dispute by filing a writ petition it was submitted that the (sic) made by the respondent in CWP No. 2630/94 that "if the election was sham it was not necessary to challenge the election of the members by filing election petitions" may be of no relevance. We do not think, however, that that was the intent and purpose of the judgment of the Supreme Court. If on the face of record it is found that there were no real election as contemplated by law and that the elections were merely a pretence in an attempt just to satisfy the requirement of law, it will be a ground to interfere in that context the respondent must be held bound by the statement of law attributed to it in the previous judgment. But then the Court can certainly interfere in writ jurisdiction if it finds that exceptional and extraordinary circumstances exist. These to our mind do exist in the present case.
Section 21 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Gujarat University vs N.U. Rajguru And Ors on 10 November, 1987
In Gujarat University's case there was challenge to election of certain members to "Court" of Gujarat University constituted under the Gujarat University Act. The challenge was by way of a writ petition. The Court said that the Gujarat University Act and the Statutes framed thereunder provided a machinery or a forum for determination of disputes arising out of election and that the aggrieved person should pursue his remedy before the forum provided by the Statute. The Court said it was not permissible to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by-passing the machinery designated by the Act for determination of the election dispute, and that ordinarily the remedy provided by the statute must be followed before the authority designated therein. However, the Court said that there might be cases where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances might exist to justify by-passing the alternative remedies. It said that in the case before it there existed no circumstance justifying departure from the normal rule.
Daulat Ram Chauhan vs Anand Sharma on 16 January, 1984
The judgment of the Supreme Court in Daulat Ram Chauhan's case, was cited to show that in order to constitute "corrupt practices" in election what are the necessary particulars, statement of facts and essential ingredients that must be contained in the pleadings.