Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.01 seconds)
Documents citing S. Iqbal Singh vs S. Gurdas Singh Badal And Ors. on 3 November, 1971

Election Officer vs Parbatbhai Savabhai Patel on 27 February, 2020

13. In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the opinion that no one may be joined as a party to an election petition otherwise than as provided by Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Act. It follows that a person who is not a candidate may not be joined as a respondent to the election petition. The appeal is therefore, allowed with costs and the names of the appellants and the seventh respondent in the appeal are directed to be struck out from the array of parties in the election petition. We may mention that in arriving at our conclusion we have also considered the following decisions cited before us: S.B. Adityen & Anr. v. S. Kandaswami & Ors.,(1) Dwijendra Lal Sen Gupta v. Herekrishna Koner,(2) H.R. Gokhale v. Bharucha Noshir C. & Ors.,(3) and S. Iqbal Singh v. S. Gurdas Singh Badal & Ors."
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - V P Patel - Full Document

B.S. Yadiyurappa vs Mahalingappa And Others on 3 November, 2000

When I so observe, I further find support from the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as regards interpretation of Sections 82 and 86, in the case of S. Iqbal Singh v S. Gurdas Singh Badal and Others. In this case, Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Mahajan, as he then was, observed as under: (para 9) "9. Section 82 is in the Chapter dealing with presentation of election petitions and indicates the parties to such a petition. But this section has to be read with Section 81 for it cannot be envisaged that the petitioner is not a party to an election petition. In fact, Section 82 merely tells us the respondents to the petition. It is not so worded as to permit any other parties being added as respondents, besides those mentioned therein. If there could be other parties to the petition that those mentioned in the Section, it would have been worded as: 'A petitioner may join as respondent to his petition all persons interested in the decision of the petition'; or 'A petitioner shall join respondents to the petition those mentioned in Section 82 and any other persons interested in the decision of the election petition'. If the intention was not to make Section 82 exhaustive, its non-compliance would not have resulted in the dismissal of the petition. The legislature was well 'aware' of Section 99 which much of the argument has been founded for the inclusion of proper parties. Can it be said that any person besides those mentioned in Section 81 can present an election petition? If the Code of Civil Procedure is to control Section 81, then any person interested in an election dispute can come and present an election petition but Section 81 restricts the right to present an election petition to any candidate at such election or any elector, and the explanation restricts the meaning of the word 'elector' to one who is entitled to vote in the constituency with regard to which the election dispute has arisen. It is significant that an elector who is not an elector in the constituency can come and contest the election in the constituency, but such an elector is not given the right to present an election petition in the constituency in which he is not recorded as an elector. But, if he is a candidate in that constituency, by virtue of his being a candidate, he has a right to present the election petition. It appears to me that Sections 81 and 82 read together, tell us the parties to an election petition and wherever the legislature though fit to make a departure it specifically provided for it in clear terms".
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jyoti Basu & Others vs Debi Ghosal & Others on 26 February, 1982

In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the opinion that no one may be joined as a party to an election petition otherwise than as provided by Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Act. It follows that a person who is not a candidate may not be joined as a respondent to the election petition. The appeal is therefore, allowed with costs and the names of the appellants and the seventh respondent in the appeal are directed to be struck out from the array of parties in the election petition. We may mention that in arriving at our conclusion we have also considered the following decisions cited before us: S.B. Adityen & Anr. v. S. Kandaswami & Ors.,(1) Dwijendra Lal Sen Gupta v. Herekrishna Koner,(2) H.R. Gokhale v. Bharucha Noshir C. & Ors.,(3) and S. Iqbal Singh v. S. Gurdas Singh Badal & Ors.(4) N.V.K, Appeal allowed
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 430 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Balaram Dattatray Patil vs Prashant Ram Thakur on 23 March, 2018

Relying on S. Iqbal Singh vs. S. Gurdas Singh13, learned Counsel further submits that it is enough if the candidate or his agent is shown to have made a gift, offer or promise; there is no need to establish any bargain for votes against such gift, offer or promise. It is true that, as held by these judgments, an offer need not be of any specific amount; there need not be any evidence of negotiation between the offerer and the elector; the object of offer must be shown to have a nexus with direct or indirect inducement of 11 (1967) 3 SCR 19 12 1994 Supp (3) SCC 170 13 (1976) 3 SCC 284 Pg 12 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2018 02:00:42 ::: sg ep7-14.doc an electoral result through votes in favour of the candidate and this nexus can be established by circumstantial evidence; there is no need to establish in particular that there was any bargain for votes; and it is certainly enough if the candidate or his election agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent makes such offer. But these propositions, well established as they are, are still besides the point in the present case. They do not detract from the elementary requirement of there being an offeree to whom such offer is made.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - S C Gupte - Full Document

Deputy District Development Officer vs Nathabhai Prabhudas Patel on 20 December, 2021

In support of his arguments, learned advocate has relied upon a decision in the case of Michael B. Fernandes Vs. C.K.Jaffer Sharief and Others reported in (2002) 3 SCC 521 and a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Vs. Gurdas Singh Badal and Others, reported in (1972) 1 ILR 554 and in the case of Jyoti Basu & Ors. Vs. Debi Ghosal & Ors., reported in (1982) 1 SCC 691.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V M Pancholi - Full Document
1   2 Next