UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Rights of Declared Candidates Upheld: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Election Participation Despite Disqualification Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Delhi High Court has made a significant decision regarding the election process of the Supreme Court Bar Association Multi-State Cooperative Group-Housing Society Ltd. The court upheld the rights of the declared candidates to participate in the elections, despite a disqualification order by the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies.

The petition, challenging the authority and jurisdiction of the disqualification order, was heard by the Acting Chief Justice and Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora. The order in question had disqualified 15 elected members of the outgoing Board from being elected as members for a period of five years.

In a statement that underscores the essence of the judgment, the Court observed, “The impugned order shall operate prospectively,” indicating that the rights of the candidates declared in the final list published on January 11, 2024, remain unaffected by the disqualification order.

The petitioners argued that the order was without jurisdiction, contrary to the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Rules, 2002, and that it was inappropriate to exclude candidates on the eve of the elections. The Court noted the completion of the nomination process and the publication of the final list of candidates, emphasizing the importance of these procedural milestones in the election process.

Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, who appeared in person, argued for the legitimacy of the disqualification order under Section 43(2) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. However, the Court’s decision focused on the timing and procedure followed in the election process, particularly the role and declarations made by the Returning Officer.

Ultimately, the High Court directed that the elections be conducted as per the final list of candidates, including those who were subject to the disqualification order. However, the Court reserved the right for the petitioners, as well as the respondents, to pursue their statutory remedies against the impugned order.

Date of Decision: 16th January, 2024

ARUN KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

 

Latest Legal News