Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (0.24 seconds)Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 43AA in The U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 [Entire Act]
Section 103 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
Vishwanatha Reddy vs Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda And Anr. on 13 September, 1968
"24. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, in our view, the impugned order passed by the High Court declaring the election petitioner as elected on the ground that the votes cast in favour of the elected candidate (appellant) are thrown away was totally erroneous and cannot be justified. As held by the Constitution Bench in Konappa case [(1969) 2 SCR 90 : AIR 1969 SC 604 sub nom Vishwanatha Reddy v. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda] that some general rule of election law prevailing in the United Kingdom that the votes cast in favour of a person who is found disqualified for election may be regarded as "thrown away" only if the voters had noticed before the poll the disqualification of the candidate, has no application in our country and has only merit of antiquity. We would observe that the question of sending such notice to all voters appears to us alien to the Act and the Rules. But that question is not required to be dealt with in this matter. As stated earlier, in the present case, for one seat, there were five candidates and it would be impossible to predict or guess in whose favour the voters would have voted if they were aware that the elected candidate was disqualified to contest election or if he was not permitted to contest the election by rejecting his nomination paper on the ground of disqualification to contest the election and what would have been the voting pattern. Therefore, order passed by the High Court declaring the election petitioner Dr Vijay Kumar Khandre as elected requires to be set aside."
The Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2016
Prakash Khandre vs Dr. Vijaya Kumar Khandre And Others on 9 May, 2002
In Prakash Khandre (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court followed the earlier dictum and held as under:-
State Of Maharashtra vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 27 February, 2023
5. This aspect of the Aadhar Act, 2016 has been reiterated/highlighted/stressed upon by different High Courts in recent judgments. The most recent one is given by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Unique Identification Authority of India dated 28.07.2023 (copy enclosed).
R. Chandran vs M. V. Marappan on 23 April, 1973
6. Reliance has been placed upon Birad Mal Singhavi vs. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1796; Nanje Kumar vs. Additional District Judge and others, ADJ 2010 (7) 769; Abdul Majeed (Meera Sahib) vs Bhargavan (Krishnan) MLA and others, AIR 1963 Ker 18; Brij Mohan Singh vs Priya Brat Narain Sinha and others, AIR 1965 SC 282; R. Chandran vs M.V. Marappan, (1973) 2 SCC 166; Joshna Gouda vs. Brundaban Gouda and Anr, (2012) 5 SCC 634; Harsh Kumar vs Bhagwan Sahai Rawat, (2003) 7 SCC 709; Kripa Shankar Chatterji vs Gurudas Chatterji and Ors, (1995) 5 SCC 1; Prakash Khandre vs Dr Vijaya Kumar Khandre, (2002) 5 SCC 568; Nand Kishore vs State Election Commission, (2003) 50 ALR 159 (All); Smt. Dimpal vs Rajesh Baluni & Ors, AIR 2016 UTT 17; Govind Singh vs. Harichand Kaur, (2011) 2 SCC 621; Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (P.U.C.L) and Anr vs. Union of India and Association for Democratic Reform, (2003) 4 SCC 399 and Anugrah Narayan Singh vs. Harsh Vardhan Bajpayee, 2022: AHC: 145488.