Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: representation of the people act 1951 chapter i nomination of candidates Year: 1962 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.079 seconds)

Dwijendra Lal Sen Gupta Vs. Harekrishna Konar

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1963Cal218,66CWN917

..... and they are :'turning now to shri kazi's grievance that respondent no. 8 (i.e. the returning officer) had been unnecessarily added and that the petition should be dismissed as against him ......... withcosts, the tribunal does not see any substance in this grievance. section 82 of the representation of the people act, 1951, provides that the petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition all the candidates who were duly nominated at the election. it is not stated anywhere in the said act that the returning officer should not be made a party. under the civil procedure code a person may be made ..... . there cannot be a hard and fast rule or an inflexible principle that a returning officer under no circumstances and in no case and on no facts, can be added as a party to the election petition. we do not read the specific sections of the representation of the people act on this point as leading to that result. section 82 of the act comes under chapter ii dealing with presentation of election petitions to election commission. the heading of section 82 is 'parties to the petition.' the significant words with which section 82 opens are 'a petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition.' then .....

Suleman FakruddIn Ansari Vs. S.B. Kulkarni and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1963Bom183; (1963)65BOMLR123; ILR1962Bom810; 1963MhLJ351

Chainani, C.J.1. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly these. The general elections for electing councillors of the Poona Municipal Corporation are to be held on 23rd September 1962. The last date for filing nomination papers was 3ist August 1962, 5th September 1962 was fixed as the date for scrutiny of nomination papers. The petitioner and opponent No. 2 had filed nomination papers from Ward No. 4. Opponent No. 2 submitted three nomination papers Nos. 32, 33 and 34. These nomination papers did not bear his signature. An objection was, therefore, raised that as opponent No. 2 had not signed the nomination papers, as required by Clause (c) in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Election Rules contained in the Schedule Jo the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, the nomination papers were invalid. The Municipal Commissioner, who is the Returning Officer, heard all the parties and thereafter overruled the objection. In his opinion two points arose for consideration:(1) Whe...

Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1962SC955; 1962(0)BLJR636; (1963)IMLJ40(SC); [1962]Supp2SCR769

Sinha, C.J.1. In these appeals the main question in controversy is whether Sections 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code have become void in view of the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The constitutionality of the provisions of s. 124A, which was mainly canvassed before us, is common to all the appeals, the facts of which may shortly be stated separately. 2. In Criminal Appeal 169 of 1957, the appellant is one Kedar Nath Singh, who was prosecuted before a Magistrate, 1st Class, at Begusarai, in the district of Monghyr, in Bihar. He framed the following charges against the accused person, which are set out in extenso in order to bring out the gravamen of the charge against him. 'First. - That you on 26th day of May, 1953 at village Barauni, P. S. Taghra (Monghyr) by speaking the words, to wit, (a) To-day the dogs of the C.I.D. are loitering round Barauni. Many official dogs are sitting even in this meeting. The people of India drove out the Britishers from this coun...

Baker Vs. Carr

Court : US Supreme Court

Baker v. Carr - 369 U.S. 186 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) Baker v. Carr No. 6 Argued April 19-20, 1961 Set for reargument May 1, 1961 Reargued October 9, 1961 Decided March 26, 1962 369 U.S. 186 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Syllabus Appellants are persons allegedly qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly of Tennessee representing the counties in which they reside. They brought suit in a Federal District Court in Tennessee under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, to redress the alleged deprivation of their federal constitutional rights by legislation classifying voters with respect to representation in the General Assembly. They alleged that, by means of a 1901 statute of Tennessee arbitrarily and capriciously apportioning the seats in the General Assembly among the State's 95 counties, and a failure to reapportion them subsequent...