Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.39 seconds)
Ramesh Chand ...Non­ vs Mahender Singh And Others ... on 11 December, 2018 cites

Jyoti Basu & Others vs Debi Ghosal & Others on 26 February, 1982

But both these aforesaid decisions of the Calcutta High Court and Bombay High Court had been considered by this Court in Jyoti Basu case and the Court took the view that the public policy   and   legislative   wisdom   both   seem   to   point   to   an interpretation of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act which does not permit the joining, as parties, of persons other than those mentioned in Sections 82 and 86(4). The Court also in paragraph   (12)   considered   the   consequences   if   persons   other than those mentioned in Section 82 are permitted to be added as parties and held that the necessary consequences would be an unending, disorderly election dispute with no hope of achieving the goal contemplated by Section 86(6) of the Act. In the aforesaid premises,   we   reiterate   the   views   taken   by   this   Court   in   Jyoti Basu's case and reaffirmed in the latter case in B. Sundara Rami Reddy   and   we   see   no   infirmity   with   the   impugned   judgment, requiring  our interference  under  Article 136  of the  Constitution. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 430 - O C Reddy - Full Document

H.R. Gokhale vs Bharucha Noshir C. And Ors. on 1 September, 1967

supports   the   contention   of   Mr.   Venkararamani.   Following   the aforesaid decision, a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the case of  H.R. Gokhale vs. Bharucha Noshir C. and Ors.,  A.I.R.   1969   Bombay   177,   had   also   observed   that   the observations of Shah, J in Ram Sewak Yadav's case, AIR 1964 SC 1249 in paragraph (6) is not intended to lay down that the Returning Officer can in no event be a proper party to an election petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

N.P. Ponnuswami vs Returning Officer, Namakkal ... on 21 January, 1952

7. At the out­set, it needs to be observed that elections and   election   disputes   are   a   matter   of   special   nature   and   that though the right to franchise and right to office are involved in an election dispute, it is not a lis at common law nor an action in equity. (See: Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court   in  N.P.Ponnuswami   vs.   Returning   Officer,   Namakkal Constituency 1952 AIR (SC) 64).
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 830 - Full Document
1   2 Next