Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Sheshmani Nath Tripathi (S.N. Tripathi ... vs Shri Dinesh Rawat, The Returned ... on 19 December, 2022 cites

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

23. Consequently, it would not be possible for the Court to fix an early date simply on the insistence of the petitioner rather it is apparent that it is on account of non compliance of the provisions of the Rules 1952 of publication of notice in the newspaper that the present situation has arisen. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of M. S. Gill (supra) of election petition to be decided expeditiously. Thus, it is apparent that there is no error in the order dated 14.09.2022 whereby the Court did not find it possible to accommodate the petitioner for listing of the case at an early date.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Kailash vs Nanhku & Ors on 6 April, 2005

31. Thus it is apparent that the Apex Court has set at rest the controversy in as much it has been held that in case of conflict between the rules framed by the High Court and the rules of procedure contained in CPC, it is the rules framed by the High Court which shall prevail. In the instant case, as already indicated in the order dated 13.07.2022, the Court had considered the rules framed under Chapter XV A of the Rules 1952 vis a vis Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC pertaining to service of notice and the Court was of the view that it is Rule 6 of the Chapter XV A of Rules 1952 which shall prevail. Thus considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kailash (supra), this Court does not find any error in the order dated 13.07.2022.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 997 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1