SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(P&H) 64

G.L.CHOPRA, A.N.BHANDARI
Bindra Ban – Appellant
Versus
Sham Sunder – Respondent


Judgment

G.L.Chopra, J.

1. These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the same judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court declaring the office of the ten elected members of Municipal Committee, Barnala, to be vacant and ordering that these members be restrained from discharging any of the functions, rights and duties of a member of the Municipality. Letters Patent Appeal No. 209 of 1957 is presented by the State and the other. No. 162 of 1957, by the members whose seats are declared to be vacant.

2. Elections for the Municipal Committee, Barnala, (a second class Municipality) were held in September. 1956. The ten appellants were elected as members from the nine election-wards into which the town was divided. On 28-12-1956, two of the residents and voters entered on the rolls of the Municipality filed a petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution for a writ, direction or order in the nature of quo warranto challenging the right of the appellants to act as members of the Municipality. The petition was based on the allegation that the election was void and invalid and was vitiated by certain illegalities and irregularities. After the elections, the State of Pepsu, in which the































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

RAJENDARKUMAR CHANDANMAL VS GOVERNMENT OF STATE - 1957 0 Supreme(MP) 14: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment (e.g., followed, distinguished, criticized, overruled, reversed, abrogated). The text describes substantive holdings on the operation of an Act's provisions, invalidity of certain actions, and void proceedings, but contains no references to how this case itself has been treated in subsequent decisions.

BIMAN CHANDRA BOSE VS H. C. MUKHERJEE - 1952 0 Supreme(Cal) 123: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment (e.g., followed, distinguished, criticized, overruled, reversed, abrogated). The text states a substantive holding on Governor's immunity under Articles 171(3)(e) and 361, but contains no references to how this case itself has been treated in subsequent decisions.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top