Back
L.NARAYANA SWAMY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR
Association for Democratic Reforms Represented by its Chairman and Authorised Representative Trilochan Sastry – Appellant
Versus
Election Commission through its Chief Electoral Officer Karnataka Having its Office at Office of Chief Electoral Officer Nirvachana Nilaya Maharanis College Circle – Respondent
JUDGMENT
A non-party in the suit, has approached this Court in this public interest writ petition, with a prayer inter alia to quash an order passed by a Civil Court on an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) in a suit.
2. Petitioner claiming to dedicate itself to bring reforms in conducting elections in a free and fair basis has presented this writ petition with following prayers:
(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned Order dated 29.03.2019 passed on IA No.1 of 2019 in OS 2526 of 2019 by the Learned XIX Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru which is at Annexure A;
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondent No.1 to enforce the norms and modalities in respect of publication of information and opinion about the contesting candidates that it has already laid down;
(c) Pass such further orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice and equity.”
3. We have heard Shri. B.N. Harish, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Advocate for second respondent.
4. Second r
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
