Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972

Dr. Narottam Mishra vs Election Commission Of India And Ors. on 18 May, 2018

"In Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi [1976]2SCR347 this Court reaffirmed the above view and taking note of the Amendment Act 58 of 1974, opined that voluntary expenditure incurred by friends, relations, or sympathisers of the candidate or the candidates' political party are not required to be included in the candidate's return of expenses, unless the expenses were incurred in the circumstances from which it could be positively inferred that the successful candidate had undertaken that he would reimburse the party or the person who incurred the expense... Noticing that during an election, the sponsoring or supporting political parties as well as friends, sympathisers and well-wishers do sometimes incur expenditure not only without the consent of the concerned candidate but even without his knowledge this court opined that the successful candidate cannot be clothed with all such expenses to suffer the disqualification."
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

T.V.Balan vs K.M.Shaji on 20 December, 2018

In Raj Narain V. Indira Nehru Gandhi and Another, 1972 KHC 648: 1972(3) SCC 850 : AIR 1972 SC 1302: 1972(3) SCR 841, apex Court held that if allegations regarding a corrupt practice do not disclose the constituent parts of the corrupt practice alleged, the same will not be allowed to be proved and those allegations cannot be amended after the period of limitation for filing an election petition. Rules of pleadings are intended as aids for a fair trial and for reaching a just decision. An action at law should not be equated to a game of chess. Provisions of law are not mere formulae to be observed as rituals. Beneath the words of a provision of law, generally speaking there lies a juristic principle.
Kerala High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Urmila(Elected Pradhan) vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 19 November, 2018

If the Election petition filed by respondent no. 6 is read in the light of law stated hereinbefore and the observations of the Supreme Court in Raj Narain (Supra) it would be clear that the allegation that bogus voting was carried out at Booth nos. 81, 82, 83 and 84 by Sri Shiv Shanker Singh with the consent and connivance of the petitioner flows as a necessary implication from the pleadings of the petitioner. In any case, the charge of stone pelting and rioting allegedly caused by respondent no. 6 herself, which is part of paragraph no. 7 of the election petition filed by respondent no. 6, is complete and, as held earlier, all material facts regarding the said charge have been stated in the election petition.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 8 - S K Rai - Full Document

Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju, vs Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy, on 15 December, 2018

Finally, as cautioned by this Court in Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi and another [14], it was held that: "19. Rules of pleadings are intended as aids for a fair trial and for reaching a just decision. An action at law should not be equated to a game of chess. Provisions of law are not mere formulae to be observed as rituals. Beneath the words of a provision of law, generally speaking, there lies a juristic principle. It is the duty of the court to ascertain that principle and implement it. ..." (Emphasis supplied) Guided by the settled principles of law referred to above, we are of the view that the election petition having disclosed a cause of action, it should not 65 Dr.SSRB,J E.P.No.8 of 2014 have been thrown out at the threshold. The impugned order and judgment are hence set aside. The appeals are allowed. The election petition is remitted to the High Court for trial in accordance with law.
Telangana High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Azizuddin Ahmed, Hyderabad vs B Hymavathi, Hyderabad on 18 December, 2018

The important judgments on this subject are Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi3, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India clearly held that the questions that can be raised and served as interrogatories are those relating 1 AIR 2009 Patna 46 2 MANU/DE/2921/2013 3 AIR 1972 SC 1302 3 to matters in question. The interrogatories served should have a close connection with the matters in question.
Telangana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1