Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.24 seconds)The Representation Of The People Act, 1950
Article 102 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 192 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Election Commission Of India vs N.G. Ranga And Ors on 17 August, 1978
38.Added further, the decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent reported in AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 1609 (THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA V. N.G.RANGA AND OTHERS), cannot be applied to the present facts of the case for the simple reason that it was a case where the petitioner therein sought for a writ of prohibition to restrain the Election Commission from proceeding with the enquiry and also to quash the notice issued by the Election Commission for the enquiry which, in the opinion of Their Lordships, could not be granted since the Election Commission has issued the notice for the conduct of an enquiry which was a constitutional obligation which the Election Commission was to perform, and hence, such a writ could not be issued. But, that is not the case noticed by the Court in the instant writ petition. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief sought for is strictly in the nature of a direction to the Election Commission to confine the enquiry on the complaint and if done beyond that, it would be in excess of the powers vested on the Election Commission. The rule of law mandates that where a power is given to an authority to do a certain thing in a certain way, that thing must be done in that way and not at all.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988
40.In a democratic society like India, Courts must and do exist for not only setting right the wrongs done, but also to prevent the wrongs being done. The contention of the respondents' side that after the passing of the final decision, the petitioner if aggrieved, can approach the Court for his necessary remedy would be driving the citizen to approach the Court of law after his rights are invaded and infringed and after he suffers an injury along with the stigma. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 1531 (A.R.ANTULAY V. R.S.NAYAK AND ANOTHER) wherein it has been held as follows:
Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai And Anr vs P. Ganesan And Others on 23 November, 2007
25.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that the contention of the petitioner that there are two parallel proceedings on the same set of facts, one before the Election Commission and the other before the criminal forum, and if he is directed to file his written statement before the Election Commission, he has to necessarily put forth his defence which might be used against him in the Court of criminal law cannot be countenanced for the reason that as far as the Election Commission was concerned, he has already submitted to jurisdiction by filing preliminary objections, and enquiry has got to be commenced and completed as expeditiously as possible since the petitioner has got his term only till April 2008; that apart from this, the criminal case already registered, is only at the initial stage of investigation, and hence, it cannot be construed as proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his contentions, placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2007 (5) CTC 632 (INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND ANOTHER V. P.GANESAN AND OTHERS).
Nasir Ahmad And Ors. vs King-Emperor on 12 May, 1927
12.Placing reliance on the decision of the Privy Council reported in AIR 1936 PRIVY COUNCIL 253 (2) (NAZIR AHMAD V. KING-EMPEROR), the petitioner would submit that the first respondent should exercise the powers in the manner in which it is contemplated and not otherwise.