Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC399; 1983(2)SCALE800; (1984)2SCC404; [1984]1SCR939; 1984(16)LC179(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. At the conclusion of the hearing of the above appeals on November 16, 1983, we pronounced the following order :Heard counsel for the parties. The appeals are allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside without any order as to costs. We now give our reasons.2. Two questions arise for consideration in these three appeals which are filed against the judgment and order dated July 10, 1981 of the High Court of Allahabad in Election Petition No. 7 of 1980. They are :1. Whether the Secretary of a State Legislative Assembly is not qualified to be appointed as the Returning Officer at an election held to fill a seat in the Rajya Sabha ?2. Whether a person elected as a member of a Legislative Assembly but who has not made and subscribed the prescribed oath or affirmation as required by Article 188 of the Constitution can validly propose a person as a candidate at an election held for filling a seat in the Rajya Sabha ?3. In February, 1980 the Legislative Assembl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party, a recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir has filed this appeal before this Court seeking to impugn the judgment of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, dated 2nd of June 2009. The High Court dismissed both the writ petitions which raised identical questions. They were heard together and disposed of by the impugned judgment.3. The main thrust of the challenge before the High Court, as well as before this Court is on the following question: whether or not the action of the government in postponing the delimitation of territorial constituencies of the State pertaining to the Legislative Assembly until the relevant figures published after the first census taken after 2026 is legally sustainable?4. In fact the appellant is aggrieved by an amendment to the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act 1957, especially the amendment in Section 3 thereof. This amendment has been brought about in 2002. Section 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2012(2)ILR(Ker)790; 2012(3)KLT22; 2012(3)KLJ36
The following questions arise for consideration in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India: i) Can an election petition be amended wherein the election has been called in question on the ground of 'double voting' and not on the ground of 'corrupt practice' ? ii) Is an amendment of the election petition permissible after the date fixed for the respondents to appear when the trial is deemed to have commenced in law ? iii) Whether 'material facts' or 'particulars' could be introduced by such amendment after the time limit prescribed to question the election and is not the plea then barred by limitation ? Divergent answers come from Mr.D.Krishna Prasad, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Jose J Matheikel, Advocate on behalf of the first respondent for these questions. 2. The petitioner is the returned candidate from Ward No.XIII of Kallar Grama Panchayat whose election has been called in question by the first respondent. The first respondent los...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1992Ori55; 1992(I)OLR400
R. C. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has assailed the election of the members of the committee of Bhawani-patna Central Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter called, 'the Bank') held on 28-7-1985.2. The Bank, being a Central Co-operative Bank, has societies as its members (vide Section 16, Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (3) of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act). 239 primary societies are its members. As provided in Section 28, the management of the Bank, which is a society, vests in a committee constituted in accordance with the rules and its bye-laws (vide Section 28, Sub-section (1)). As provided in Sub-section (1-a) thereof, the term of office of the committee is for four years from the date of assumption of the office by the committee. The members of the Bank are divided in 12 constituencies. Each constituency is to elect a member -- a Director to constitute the committee of the Bank. The Bank has two...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP70
Venkatesam, J.1. The only point for determination in this S.R. is, whether a revi-sion petition filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, XV of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is barred by limitation if not filed within 90 days from the date of the order as laid down by Role 41-A (2) of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). If that rule governs the case, the revision petition is barred by limitation and the petitioner should get the delay condoned on sufficient cause being shown. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the rule has no application to the case as it is governed by Section 22 of the Act, according to which the revision petition could be filed at any time.2. Considering the importance of the question raised, one of us (Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.) directed that the matter should be posted before a Bench. At our request, Sri G. Venkatarama Sastr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1957All292
Mootham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which raises two questions of election law of some importance.2. The facts are these: Five persons, who are respondents Nos. 5 to 9, were candidates for election to the House of the People from the Luck-now District (Central) Constituency at a bye-election held on the 27th February, 1955. At this election Srimati Sheoraiwati Nehru was declared elected and thereupon Sri Triloki Singh, respondent No. 5, filed an election petition challenging the election of the successful candidate on a number of grounds, it being alleged that corrupt practices had been committed at the election.3. On the 14th June. 1958, the Election Tribunal constituted to hear the petition served upon the petitioner who is a Minister in the Government of the Uttar Pradesh. a notice under the proviso to Section 99(1) of the Representation of the People Act. 1951. calling upon him to appear before the Tribunal and to show cause why he should not be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC329; 1970CriLJ499a; (1969)3SCC419; [1970]1SCR87
M. Hidayatullah, C.J.1. The appellant (Rev. Father Monteiro) is a resident of Goa. After the annexation of Goa by India, he had the choice of becoming an Indian national or retaining Portuguese nationality. He choose the latter and was registered as a foreigner. He also obtained a temporary residential permit which allowed him to stay on in India till November 13, 1964. The period of stay expired and he did not ask for its extension or renewal. He was ordered to leave India by the Lt. Governor of Goa. The Lt. Governor is empowered by a notification of the President of India issued under Article 239 of the Constitution to discharge the functions of the Central Government and his order has the same force and validity as if made by the Central Government. Rev. Father Monteiro disobeyed the order, and in consequence was prosecuted under Section 14 read with Section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act. He was convicted and sentenced to 30 days simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- (or 5 days...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP37
Shrivastava, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal has been filed by the petitioner Sheo Kumar against the order of Sen J, dismissing his petition (Misc. Petition No. 29 o 1957) in motion hearing on 5-2-1957.2. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 Jagan-nath Prasad were Panchas of the Gram Panchayat of mouza Ghutku, Tahsil and District Bilaspur. A meeting was held on 7-1-1957 for electing a Sar-panch. It was presided over by Jhagruram (respondent No. 3). The petitioner and Jagannath Prasad (respondent No. 5) were candidates for the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner objected to the nomination of Jagannath Prasad on the ground that he was in arrears of taxes payable to the Gram Panchayat for one year and was not, therefore, duly qualified for contesting the elections. The objection was rejected by respondent No. 3, who as stated above, presided over the meeting. After the election. Jagannath Prasad (respondent No. 5) was declared duly elected. In the petition it was also stated that the electi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE06H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.9587 OF2022(GM RES) BETWEEN: M/S UNITED BROTHERS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 M/S. UNITED HOSPITAL #110, MADHAVAN PARK CIRCLE, 10TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR3D BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DR.SHANTAKUMAR MURUDA S/O MR.CHANDRASHETTY MURUDA AGED ABOUT46YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI B.K.SAMPATH KUMAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI THAMMAIAH H.N., ADVOCATE) AND:1. . MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, ROOM NO.348, A WING, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (H AND FW) 2 2 . INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH V.RAMALINGASWAMI BHAWAN, P.O.BOX NO.4911, ANSARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110 029 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DHR AND DIRECTOR GENERAL. 3 . COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA9H FLOOR, OFFICE BLOCK-1, KIDWAI NAGAR (EAST) NEW...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 137(2007)DLT195
Vijender Jain, Acting C.J.1. This writ petition was filed in the year 1999 with the following prayers:(i) the President had no discretion in the matter and he should have invited the acknowledged leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha during the process of consultation and not a person who was not the elected member of the House;(ii) the disregard to the well established Constitutional Convention has hurt the basic structure of the Constitution;(iii) no person who is not a citizen within meaning of Article 5 of the Constitution has the right to be elected or appointed to any public office under the Constitution;(iv) the recognition granted by the Election Commission under Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is limited by the Constitution to only to such political party/parties which has/have as its/their office bearers citizens who come within meaning of Article 5 of the Constitution;(v) no person who does not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 can be appointed in the U...
Tag this Judgment!