Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.85 seconds)Section 159 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New
Delhi, (1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851, a Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court held that as the Election Commission has complete power
of superintendence, it has a power to issue directions for the purpose of
holding the election. The Court observed as under:--
Kanhiya Lal Omar vs R.K. Trivedi And Ors. on 24 September, 1985
In Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi, (1985) 4 SCC 628 : AIR
1986 SC 111, the Hon'ble Apex Court had an opportunity to examine the
scope of Article 324 of the Constitution of India read with the Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961. The Court held that every direction issued by the
Commission cannot be put at par to statutory rule but it requires strict
adherence. The Court observed as under:--
Election Commission Of India vs State Bank Of India Staff Association ... on 7 February, 1995
12. To overcome the difficulty by the interpretation of the statutory
provisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of
India (supra), the provisions of Section 159 of the Act, 1951 stood
amended with effect from 23rd December, 1997 and by the amendment,
the employees of the local authorities. Universities, Government
Companies and public undertakings could also be involved in the election
process.
Common Causea Registered Society vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 April, 1996
In Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India,
(1996) 2 SCC 752 : AIR 1996 SC 3081, the Court held that the
Constitution had made the comprehensive provisions under Article 324 of
the Constitution enabling the commission to superintendent and control
over the conduct of election and to issue any direction in connection with
the election.
Somesh Tiwari vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 2008
5. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that respondent
No.2 acted mala fidely and without making any enquiry and submitting
any report to the Commission got the impugned order issued shifting the
petitioner and in his place, respondent No.3 has been posted. He has
submitted that the order impugned is without jurisdiction for the reason
that during the Model Code of Conduct, only the Commission can issue
an order of transfer or shifting of an employee or some other officer, if
so required, could be posted but that had to be done by the Election
Commissioner only whereas here Election Commission has not acted
upon and it is the respondent No.2 who has issued the order and shifted
the petitioner from his post and brought respondent No.3 in his place.
He has further submitted that the impugned order is a punitive order as it
has been passed on a complaint made against the petitioner and,
therefore, in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of
Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2009 AIR
SCW 854, the order is illegal and cannot be issued without giving any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned
order in light of the law laid by the Supreme Court in case of Somesh
Tiwari (supra) is liable to be quashed. He has further contended that
even under the circumstances existing there was no occasion for shifting
the respondent No.3 in place of petitioner but that exercise has been
done only to accommodate him in place of petitioner and that too by
respondent No.2 because respondent No.3 is his blue eyed boy. He has
also submitted that in fact, the petitioner has nothing to do with the
5
conduct of election and his duties are not directly connected with the
same and, therefore, the guidelines issued by the Commission shifting
officers who have completed three years of service at one place will not
be applicable in the present case.
Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 20 December, 1974
16. In view of the above, it can be summarised that the instruction
issued by the Election Commission, though executive in nature, as is
issued in performance of a legal and sovereign function and looking to the
purpose for which the powers are conferred the mandate issued by the
Election Commission is binding upon the State. Moreso, once the State
Government adopts the Code, it is not open for its instrumentalities to
violate the same as it would amount to colourable exercise of power or it
would be arbitrary and unreasonable not to act in consonance with the
directions issued by the Commission. (Vide Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia
17
v. The State of Punjab, (1975) 3 SCC 503 : AIR 1975 SC 984) : [1975 (1)
SLR 171 (SC)].