Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., N.P. Singh and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
Indian National Congress - Petitioner
Versus
Election Commission of India and others - Respondents
S.L.P. (C) No. 5876 of 1996 with SLP(C) No. 8164 of 1996 and SP(C) No. 6260 of 1996
Decided On : 29-03-1996
JUDGMENT :
1. SLP(C) No. 5876/96: We are inclined to think that the point raised in this Special Leave Petition is an important question regarding the interpretation of Article 329 of the Constitution and related provisions in the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. We, therefore, admit this Petition to hearing.
2. Having regard to the purity of election and the possibility of confusion likely to arise in the minds of the voters on account of the close similarity of names of the political parties, we direct that the word (Tiwari) be added after the name 'All India Indira Congress.' The Election Commissioner will issue whatever directions it considers appropriate in the light of the above order forthwith.
SLP (C) No. 8164/96:
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we direct by consentum of the parties that the Election Commission should hear the petitioner on the question of registration of the name of the respondent-party since the petitioner was not heard even though the respondent was heard on the question of Registration of the petitioner's party. In the instant case, more so because the petitioner had filed a caveat desiring to be heard before the decision in regard to the registration of the respondent's party was taken. We, therefore, dispose of the petition accordingly.
4. The parties are directed to appear before the Registrar of the Election Commission tomorrow so that the Registrar may be able to indicate the date of hearing to them.
SLP(C) No. 6260/96:
5. List the petition on 2nd April, 1996.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
