Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (1.65 seconds)
Documents citing Kamalnath vs Sudesh Verma on 8 January, 2002

Saidai.Sa.Duraisamy vs Stalin. M.K on 1 June, 2017

That I have read over the contents of accompanying writ petition pp. 1 to 13, paras 1 to 18, synopsis and list of dates, pp. A to C and I say that the same are true and correct on knowledge and based on the record of the case. The affidavit shows that the contents were true and correct to his knowledge and based on records. Strangely, it has not been indicated as to what is the source of his knowledge and is based on what records. Even the copy of the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court where he filed writ application on allegedly identical issues, as indicated in the petition, has not been annexed. The casual and cavalier fashion in which it appears to have been handled and of late attempted to be made ipse dixit in a laconic and lackadaisical manner compels us to draw the only inference that the Petitioner is a busybody bent upon self-publicity sans any sense of responsibility unmindful of the adverse impact, at times it may go to create at the expenses of decency and dignity of constitutional offices and functionaries and there is no element or even trace of public interest involved in the petition. 55.15. The Learned Senior Counsel for the 1st Respondent cites the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court Kamalnath V. Sudesh Verma reported in (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 410 at Special Page 411 wherein it is held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 178 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke vs Dr. Sujay Radhakrishna Vikhe-Patil on 8 April, 2026

28. The judgment in the case of Kamalnath Vs. Sudesh Verma, (supra), is in respect of maintainability of election petition on the stand point of material facts. There allegation was about expenses exceeding permissible limit. It was tried to be argued by the respondent/applicant that there is no compliance of section 83(1), as there is no affidavit affirmed as per Form 25. It was held that mere verification cannot be said to be compliance of Form 25.
Bombay High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Sujay Radhakrishna Vikhe-Patil vs Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke on 8 April, 2026

28. The judgment in the case of Kamalnath Vs. Sudesh Verma, (supra), is in respect of maintainability of election petition on the stand point of material facts. There allegation was about expenses exceeding permissible limit. It was tried to be argued by the respondent/applicant that there is no compliance of section 83(1), as there is no affidavit affirmed as per Form 25. It was held that mere verification cannot be said to be compliance of Form 25.
Bombay High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Nissar S/O Mohd. Ibrahim Pawar vs Shivaji S/O Bhanudas Kardile on 21 September, 2007

25. The fact situation in the present case is quite different. The basic facts are not pleaded by the petitioner. The Apex Court in Kamalnath v. Sudesh Verma , held that vague assertion that helicopter was used for specified number of flying hours and mentioning standard charges for flying hours would not constitute material fact that candidate has incurred expenses in excess of permissible ceiling. It was also held that for want of material facts, the election petition was not maintainable. The requirement to plead material facts need not be over emphasised. The need to plead material facts is implicit in the requirement of law, particularly, Under Section 83 of the Representation of People Act. Section 83(1) makes it mandatory for the petitioner to make a concise statement of the material facts on which he relies. It is also mandatory for the petitioner to set out full particulars of the corrupt practice which he alleges. He is required to make full statement, as far as possible, including names of the parties alleged to have committed such practice, indicate the date and place of the commission of such practice.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V R Kingaonkar - Full Document

Doman Singh Nagpure vs Pradeep Jaiswal on 14 July, 2011

10. However, in absence of averment that the respondent did incur the expenditure of hiring the aforesaid vehicles for the specified number of days or that he had authorized his election agent for hiring such vehicles or that he had authorized any other person for hiring such vehicles to whom he has undertaken to reimburse the amount, it must be held that material facts in relation to an allegation of corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(6) read with S.77 of the Act are lacking (Kamalnath v. Sudesh Verma AIR 2002 SC 599 referred to). In that case, the petitioner had averred that an helicopter had been used for a number of hours and the normal rate of hiring a helicopter being in the minimum Rs. 2,12,000/- per day and the helicopter having been used for 14 days, the returned candidate must have been required to pay more than the prescribed limit towards the expenses of the helicopter. Observing that this cannot be held to be an assertion of material fact and on the other hand, it would be in the realm of conjecture, requiring the Court to draw inference by adopting an involved process of reasoning and that would not satisfy the requirement of the pleadings of material facts, the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dismissing the application for rejection of election petition for want of material facts.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next