LawCite Search | LawCite Markup Tool | Help | Feedback Law Cite

Note "Subordinate Court '* ment of Wright J , the learned Judge states: (b) Bombay Local Boards Act (6 of 1923), S 19 Now by rules, and I should think, quite apart --Candidate not voter under S 19 -- Assistant from the rules, on legal principles no action would Judge has no inherent jurisdiction to question lie for this dividend against the trustee and payment election of it therefore can only be enforced in the way pro In the case of a disputed election where the local vided by the statute and the only section under body itself is a creature of statute and the rights of which it is suggested that it can be enforced is that voters and candidates and members are conferred by which says that a Court may order the trustee to the provisions of the statute or rules made there pay under, canons of justice and equity cannot operate If a right is not conferred by the provisions of the It would appear then that both under the statute or statutory rules that right does not exist rules framed under s 112, Presidency Towns Such rights are not conferred by canons of equity and Insolvency Act for this Court and under the justice It is therefore wrong to hold that a candidate scheme of the Presidency Towns Insolvency to an election, not a duly qualified voter under the provisions of S 19 (1) had an inherent right to 4 ('35) 22     1

Cases Referring to this Case

Case Name †	Citation(s)	Court	Jurisdiction	Date	Full Text		Citation Index
Messrs H R Singh & Co v Kikasing Kanayasing	[1943] AllINRprSind 78	All India Reporter - Sind	India	20 Oct 1942	AsianLII