Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.38 seconds)The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993
K.S.Panduranga vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 2013
18.2 What is per incuriam ? Per incuriam are those
decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some
inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority biding on
the court concerned, so that in such cases some part of the
decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is
found, on that account to be demonstrably wrong. Differently
put, the rule of per incuriam can be applied where a court
omits to consider a binding precedent of the same court or the
superior court rendered on the same issue or where a court
omits to consider any statute while deciding that issue. Hon'ble
the Supreme Court of India, in the case of K.S. Panduranga Vs.
State of Karnataka, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 721, has taken
note of, and reiterated, this proposition of law.
The Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963
The General Clauses Act, 1897
Jyoti Basu & Others vs Debi Ghosal & Others on 26 February, 1982
It is further submitted
that, while rendering the said decision, the view expressed by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of (i) Jagan
Nath versus Jaswant Singh - AIR 1954 SC 210, (ii) Kabul
Singh versus Kundan Singh - AIR 1970 SC 340, (iii) Jyoti
Basu versus Debi Ghosal - (1982) 1 SCC 691 and (iv) Arun
Kumar Bose versus Mohd.Furkan Ansari - (1984) 1 SCC 91, was
also kept in view and thus the view expressed in Mohan Lal
Tripathi (supra) has to be accepted as the consistent view of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India.
Arun Kumar Bose vs Mohd. Furkan Ansari & Others on 28 September, 1983
It is further submitted
that, while rendering the said decision, the view expressed by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of (i) Jagan
Nath versus Jaswant Singh - AIR 1954 SC 210, (ii) Kabul
Singh versus Kundan Singh - AIR 1970 SC 340, (iii) Jyoti
Basu versus Debi Ghosal - (1982) 1 SCC 691 and (iv) Arun
Kumar Bose versus Mohd.Furkan Ansari - (1984) 1 SCC 91, was
also kept in view and thus the view expressed in Mohan Lal
Tripathi (supra) has to be accepted as the consistent view of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India.
Pratap Chandra Mehta vs State Bar Council Of M.P.& Ors on 9 August, 2011
In our view, the
observations made by the Apex Court at paragraph
45 of the decision in the case of Pratap Chandra
Mehta (supra) could be said as supplementing such
rights with the electorate to oust the person
concerned from the post."
Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs The Collector, District Raigad & Ors on 2 March, 2012
It is further submitted that the case
of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) was in the case of removal of
an office bearer on the ground of misconduct, which is not the
case here and even if it was to be relied, it would help the
respondent No.3 Federation and not the petitioner.
Narmadaben V. Parmar vs Taluka Development Officer on 15 October, 1997
It is further submitted that, even in view of
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated January
17-20, 2014, on this very petition, the decision of this Court in
the cases of Nandlal Bavanjibhai Posiya (supra), Motibhai R.
Chaudhary (supra) and Narmadaben Parmar (supra) are
accepted to have been impliedly over-ruled atleast to the
extent that there can not be any applicability of General
Clauses Act in the election matters. It is further contended that
equity and common law has no play, so far the election
matters are concerned.