Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: representation of the people act 1951 chapter i nomination of candidates Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 29 results (0.049 seconds)

Dr. Madhavrao S/O Bhujangrao Kinhalkar Vs. Ashok S/O Shankarrao Chavan ...

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

..... publications or the manifesto of the party or whether the publications were at the instance of respondent no.1. (i) there is absolutely nothing to demonstrate nexus between respondent no.1 and alleged publications. (j) there is no pleading in respect of date and place of the publications as well as particulars of the publications. 13 section 80 of the representation of the people act, 1951, provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with provisions of this chapter (chapter ii). section 81 of the act deals with presentation of petitions, whereas, section 82 provides for parties to the petition ..... is not evident as to what are the dates of publications and whether the publications are prior to presentation of nomination paper by respondent no.1 or thereafter. in view of section 79(b) of the representation of the people act, candidate means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. respondent no.1 shall be treated as candidate only after presentation of his nomination paper. it is not made clear anywhere in the petition as to whether the alleged publications were prior to presentation of nomination paper by respondent no.1 or thereafter. the pleading in respect of excess expenditure/paid news contained in paragraph .....

Dr. Madhavrao S/O Bhujangrao Kinhalkar Vs. Ashok S/O Shankarrao Chavan ...

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

..... publications or the manifesto of the party or whether the publications were at the instance of respondent no.1. (i) there is absolutely nothing to demonstrate nexus between respondent no.1 and alleged publications. (j) there is no pleading in respect of date and place of the publications as well as particulars of the publications. 13 section 80 of the representation of the people act, 1951, provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with provisions of this chapter (chapter ii). section 81 of the act deals with presentation of petitions, whereas, section 82 provides for parties to the petition ..... is not evident as to what are the dates of publications and whether the publications are prior to presentation of nomination paper by respondent no.1 or thereafter. in view of section 79(b) of the representation of the people act, candidate means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. respondent no.1 shall be treated as candidate only after presentation of his nomination paper. it is not made clear anywhere in the petition as to whether the alleged publications were prior to presentation of nomination paper by respondent no.1 or thereafter. the pleading in respect of excess expenditure/paid news contained in paragraph .....

Prahladan Vs. Varkala Kahar

Court : Kerala

..... filed under sections 80, 81, 83, 84 and 100(1)(c) of the representation of people act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the "act" challenging the election of the respondent from no.127 of varkala legislative assembly constituency in the general election held on 13.04.2011. 2. petitioner, as a candidate, submitted two nomination papers, numbered as aro-13 and aro-14, to contest the election from the above constituency. he submitted his nomination as a candidate of the bahujan samaj party, for short, the 'bsp', a registered national political party. scrutiny of the nomination papers were conducted by the returning officer on 28.03 ..... reference to the question whether such defect noticed is curable and permitted to be rectified. in the context, the relevant guidelines given to the returning officers over the scrutiny of nomination papers as covered under the hand book for returning officers published by the election commission deserve to be taken note of. chapter vi of the hand book deals with the scrutiny of nominations by the returning officer. paragraph 2 of that chapter emphasizes that scrutiny of nomination papers is a quasi judicial function and it has to be discharged by the returning officers with the highest judicial standards. paragraph 6 spells out that even .....

Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam Vs. Election Commission of IndiA.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... made on behalf of the writ petitioners, ms. meenakshi arora, learned advocate, appearing for the election commission of india, submitted that section 29-a contained in part 4a of the representation of the people act, 1951, provided a complete procedure as to the manner in which political parties were to be registered. part vof the act deals with conduct of elections, which includes nomination of candidates, their election agents and the general procedure to be followed during the elections. the remaining chapters of part v deal with the conduct of elections while part va deals with free supply of certain material ..... sathi vs. nachhattar singh gill [(1982) 3 scc 487],wherein while dealing with the provisions of clause 13 of the symbols order, this court held that the dispute relating to the procedure for setting up of candidates could be the subject matter of an election petition under section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the representation of the people act, 1951.9. the authority of the election commission under the election symbols order, 1968, as a whole was also challenged before this court in kanhiya lal omar vs. r.k. trivedi & ors. [(1985) 4 scc 628 .....

Devarajan Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2012(3)KLT149; 2012(3)KHC60; 2012(3)KLJ241

..... no.502/2009 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate, malappuram. he filed a nomination paper to contest the election to the last lok sabha election from ponnani constituency. an affidavit was also sworn to and produced with his nomination paper as mandated by section 33a of the representation of peoples act, 1951 (for short r.p. act). that affidavit contained a false averment and the form 2a filed with nomination contained false statement, suppression of his previous conviction in a criminal case, was the basis of a ..... act. the definition of 'candidate' given thereunder cannot have a sweeping effect over the provisions in other chapters under the r.p. act wherein the term candidate is used, more particularly over the filing of nomination, scrutiny, rejection etc. if we go by part v of the r.p. act which deals with the conduct of elections it is emphatically made clear that any person who is filing a nomination paper for contesting the election is treated as a candidate. section 32 of the r.p. act contemplates nomination of candidate ..... to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. when his nomination paper filed has been rejected, whatever be the reason thereof, according to the learned counsel, he cannot be considered as a candidate and, thus, liable to be prosecuted for the offence under section 125a of the r.p. act as proceeded in the present case. learned counsel for petitioner relied on sheo kumar and another vs. v.g. oak and others [a.i.r 1953 all 633 .....

Mrs. Kavitha Mahesh Vs. Chief Election Commissioner and Others

Court : Karnataka

..... is entitled for relief u/s. 100 [1][c] of the representation of people act, 1951. since rejection of petitioners nomination paper at the threshold by the 4threspondent is illegal and improper and direct r1 to initiate suitable disciplinary action against r4 as per provisions of representation of people act. 1951 so that it serves as a deterrent and discourage such officers from violating the statutory law and helps in upholding the constitutional rights of the citizens in general and petitioner in particular and etc.)1. this election petition under section 81 of the representation of people act. 1951 [for short the act], is by a person who had aspired to be an independent candidate to contest the election for seeking the support of electors of k ..... has stated that he refused to accept the same; that there is no enabling provision to do so; that the requirements of law and procedure are quite familiar to him as contained in paras 12[1] and 12[2] of chapter v of handbook for returning officers supplied by the election commission of india wherein it had been clearly indicated that time for presenting a nomination paper was between 11 am and 3 pm.74. he had stated that the returning officer does not have any power to vary this time stipulation for receiving .....

Kavitha Mahesh Vs. Chief Election Commissioner and ors

Court : Karnataka

..... is entitled for relief u/s. 100 [1][c] of the representation of people act, 1951. since rejection of petitioners nomination paper at the threshold by the 4th respondent is illegal and improper and direct r1 to initiate suitable disciplinary action against r4 as per provisions of representation of people act. 1951 so that it serves as a deterrent and discourage such officers from violating the statutory law and helps in upholding the constitutional rights of the citizens in general and petitioner in particular and etc.)1. this election petition under section 81 of the representation of people act. 1951 [for short the act], is by a person who had aspired to be an independent candidate to contest the election for seeking the support of electors ..... has stated that he refused to accept the same; that there is no enabling provision to do so; that the requirements of law and procedure are quite familiar to him as contained in paras 12[1] and 12[2] of chapter v of handbook for returning officers supplied by the election commission of india wherein it had been clearly indicated that time for presenting a nomination paper was between 11 am and 3 pm.74. he had stated that the returning officer does not have any power to vary this time stipulation for receiving .....

Nimmaka Jaya Raju Vs. Janardhana That Raj Veera Vara Thodaramala and O ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... section 100(1)(a) and (d)(i) of the representation of the people act, 1951 (for short the act) to declare the election of the 1st respondent to 130-kurupam (s.t.) assembly constituency to be null and void, set aside the same and declare the petitioner to have been duly elected as member from that constituency under section 84 of the act. 2. the petitioner claims to have contested the election to 130-kurupam (s.t.) assembly constituency held on 16-04-2009 as the candidate of praja rajyam ..... of parvathipuram, vizianagaram district, hails from addapusila in parvathipuram mandal and is originally a zamindari family of belgam estate. in the manual of the district of vizagapatnam in the presidency of madras, published by the state editor, district gazette, hyderabad, andhra pradesh in chapter-xii relating to belgam family and estates at page 327, it is mentioned that the family belongs to hill rajah (konda raju) caste. in 2004(4) alt 14, the high court referred in paragraph 84 ..... petitioner and the 1st respondent contested from jiyamma-valasa mandal as telugu desam and indian national congress nominees respectively and the objection of the petitioner regarding the social status of the 1st respondent at the time of scrutiny of nominations, was overruled. after the 1st respondent defeated the petitioner in the election, the petitioner did not file any election petition questioning the election of the 1st respondent, particularly questioning his social status, which amounts .....

Jitu Patnaik Vs. Sanatan Mohakud and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... appeared and filed his written statement/reply traversing the pleadings set out in the election petition. the returned candidate also made an application under order vi rule 16 read with 5section 151 and order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for short, 'cpc') read with section 86(1) of the representation of the people act, 1951 (for short, '1951 act') with prayer to strike out/reject the pleadings made in paragraphs 7(a), 7(b), 7(c), 7(d), 7(e), 7(f) and 7(g ..... , the returning officer is to prepare and publish a list of contesting candidates, that is to say, candidates who were included in the list of validly nominated candidates and who have not withdrawn their candidature within the said period. the candidates who survive the date of the withdrawal of candidatures are described in section 38 as 'contesting candidates'. the list of contesting candidates prepared and published by the returning officer contains the names of the contesting candidates in alphabetical order and the addresses of the contesting candidates as given in the nomination papers together with such other particulars as may be prescribed.17. part v, chapter iii of the 1951 act deals with the general procedure at elections. section .....

Nimmaka Jaya Raju Vs. Janardhana That Raj Veera Vara Thodarama

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... section 100(1)(a) and (d)(i) of the representation of the people act, 1951 (for short "the act") to declare the election of the 1st respondent to 130-kurupam (s.t.) assembly constituency to be null and void, set aside the same and declare the petitioner to have been duly elected as member from that constituency under section 84 of the act.2. the petitioner claims to have contested the election to 130-kurupam (s.t.) assembly constituency held on 16-04-2009 as the candidate of praja rajyam party ..... of parvathipuram, vizianagaram district, hails from addapusila in parvathipuram mandal and is originally a zamindari family of belgam estate. in the manual of the district of vizagapatnam in the presidency of madras, published by the state editor, district gazette, hyderabad, andhra pradesh in chapter-xii relating to belgam family and estates at page 327, it is mentioned that the family belongs to 'hill rajah' (konda raju) caste. in 2004(4) alt 14.the high court referred in paragraph 84 ..... petitioner and the 1st respondent contested from jiyamma- valasa mandal as telugu desam and indian national congress nominees respectively and the objection of the petitioner regarding the social status of the 1st respondent at the time of scrutiny of nominations, was overruled. after the 1st respondent defeated the petitioner in the election, the petitioner did not file any election petition questioning the election of the 1st respondent, particularly questioning his social status, which amounts .....