Category: Election Laws

Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 – Section 28(8) – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 94 – Election law – It is a trite position of law that when it comes to the interpretation of statutory provisions relating to election law, jurisprudence on the subject mandates strict construction of the provisions – An election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but purely a statutory proceeding, provision for which have to be strictly construed

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LAXMI SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. REKHA SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari,…

Management of recognised Non­ Government Madrasahs (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 2002 – Rule 8 – Appointment of Administrator – Managing Committees of the Madrasahs failed to initiate the process of election for reconstitution of the Committee within the prescribed period – No reason to interfere with the orders of the single judge of the High Court

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, BHERAMARI A.M. HIGH MADRASAH & ANR. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. — Respondent ( Before…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 340 – Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 – Sections 122 and 140 – Recounting of votes- HELDA declaration is issued under Section 140 of the Act that the election of respondent No. 1 as returned candidate is set aside being invalid, and instead we declare the appellant/election petitioner as having been duly elected having secured highest votes

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDESHWAR SAW — Appellant Vs. BRIJ BHUSHAN PRASAD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Recount of votes–Specified officer has no jurisdiction to entertain election petition for recount of votes even with consent of the parties. Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995–Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, S.122–Election Petiton–Post of Sarpanch–Recounting of votes–Willful disobedience of the order of the High Court–Specified officer has no jurisdiction to entertain election petition for recount of votes even with consent of the parties.

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 703 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 5096 of 2009…

Election Petition–An election petition must clearly and unambiguously set out all the material facts which the appellant is to rely upon during the trial, and it must reveal a clear and complete picture of the circumstances and should disclose a definite cause of action. Electoral Roll–Once an electoral roll is published, it becomes the final electoral roll of the constituency.

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC)  42 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu Civil Appeal No. 4201 of 2008…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.