Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.58 seconds)

The Principal Secretary (Pw) vs Ashok Kumar on 23 March, 2015

20. The abovenoted observation is being made, in view of the fact that, the election process has already been set in motion and therefore, apart from a proceeding under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, no other forum can adjudicate in such matters. No special circumstances that, the writ petition has been filed in aid of and in furtherance of the election process, are visible or apparent in any manner, as the petitioner seeks that action be taken against the respondent No. 3, which cannot be said to subserve the election process. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the Senior Counsel for the petitioner that is 13 Election Commission of India through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar (supra) is of no assistance to his case.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd ... vs K. Thangappan & Anr on 4 April, 2006

6. On the point of inordinate delay, learned counsel submits that, the writ petition is hit by inordinate delay and laches, inasmuch as, the filing of election expenditure report relates to 2018, whereas, the writ petitioner has instituted the present writ petition only in 2022, without providing any explanation for the delay in preferring the same. He submits that, the fact that, the writ petition was filed only in December, 2022, clearly shows that the same is actuated by political motive, as it 3 has been filed immediately prior to the 2023 elections, at the behest of the political party, to which the petitioner belongs. Learned counsel has placed the following decisions, in support of his contentions, namely City and Industrial Development Corp. Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, (2009) 1 SCC 168 and Karnataka Power Corp. Ltd. Vs. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 376 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next