Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Sarabjit Singh vs Mantar Singh on 21 July, 1998 cites

J.H. Patel vs Subhan Khan on 24 July, 1996

If on that date, the nomination paper conforms to the requirements of law, the Returning Officer is entitled to accept it. The date of scrutiny as interpreted in Patel's case (supra) means the whole day. Therefore, the provisions of law must be complied with before the beginning of the date of the scrutiny. It is the admitted position that in the present case, the respondent had complied with the provisions of Article 173(a) before the date of scrutiny. Thus, no infirmity can be found with the action of the Returning Officer in accepting the respondent's nomination paper.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 11 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Pashupati Nath Singh vs Harihar Prasad Singh on 22 January, 1968

56. Mr. Mattewal, contended that the candidate has to take oath alongwith the submission of the nomination paper. He placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pashupati Nath Singh v. Harihar Prasad Singh, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1064. In this case, it was noticed by their Lordships in paragraph 11 that "no oath or affirmation was attached to the nomination paper or was filed before the date fixed for the scrutiny." It was in view of this factual position that the contention raised on behalf of Pashupati Nath that the oath could have been taken before the objection was considered by the Returning Officer, was rejected. It was held that the oath has to be taken before the date fixed for scrutiny. In the present case, the respondent had admittedly taken and subscribed to the oath before the date of scrutiny. Indeed, the validity of the nomination paper has to be judged on the date of the scrutiny.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 20 - S M Sikri - Full Document
1