Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (1.22 seconds)
Bhuneshwar Bhagat vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 11 December, 1987 cites

Sakuru vs Tanaji on 10 July, 1985

16. Under the provisions of the said Act also, the powers of the Collector under the said Act-appellate authorities and the revisional authorities sometimes may be subject to the directions given by the State Government. The State Government under certain circumstances, has the final say in relation to a matter under the said Act, as is evident from Section 45-B of the said Act, A Collector under the said Act be the appellate or revisional authority, although performing judicial functions under the provisions of the said Act, but in view of Section 45-B of the said Act their say may not be the last one. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Sakuru v. Tanaji(supra). In the said judgment, the position of law in relation to the aforementioned question has been laid down in paragraph 3 thereof, which runs as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 125 - V B Eradi - Full Document

Hukumdev Narain Yadav vs Lalit Narain Mishra on 21 December, 1973

In the case of Hukumdeo Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra (supra), the Supreme Court while dealing with an election matter held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to election petition. In the said judgment, it has been held that right to challenge an election being not a new right, and such a right having been conferred subsequently upon the aggrieved person under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the provisions of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act will have no application in relation to an election petition. In my view, however, it is not necessary to lay down the law as to whether the authorities under the said Act are Courts or not, as this petition can be disposed of on another point.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 230 - P J Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next