Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (1.47 seconds)
Documents citing Manmohan Kalia vs Yash & Others on 2 April, 1984

R.Kamalakkannan vs P.R.Siva on 9 June, 2008

In Manmohan Kalia v. Yash (1984) 3 SCC 459 : (AIR 1984 SC 1161); a three Judge Bench reiterated (At p.1163 of AIR) "It is now well settled by several authorities of this Court that an allegation of corrupt practice must be proved as strictly as a criminal charge and the principle of preponderance of probabilities would not apply to corrupt practices envisaged by the Act because if this test is not applied a very serious prejudice would be caused to the elected candidate who may be disqualified for a period of six years from fighting any election, which will adversely affect the electoral process."
Madras High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - C Nagappan - Full Document

Smt. Zeneisiile Ate Loucii vs Neiphrezo Keditsu on 17 August, 2022

In the case of Monmohan Kalia Vs. Yash reported in (1984) 3 SCC 499, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the allegation of corrupt practice must be proved as strictly as a criminal charge and the principle of preponderance of probabilities would not apply to corrupt practices because if this test not applied, serious prejudice would be caused to the elected candidates.
Gauhati High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Shyam - Full Document

Siddha Raj Dhadda vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 June, 1989

The arguments of Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the non-petitioner that news in papers at best are secondary evidence and therefore they cannot form the basis even in public interest litigations in the matters of public places like the hospitals run by the State Government cannot be accepted and so far as the case of Manmohan Kalia v. Shri Yash, AIR 1984 SC 1161 is concerned. It was not a case of public interest litigation and was the case under the Representation of the People Act. The court said that it is very difficult for the court to rely on the news items published on the information given by correspondents because they may not represent the true state of affairs. A news item without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second hand secondary evidence. The Court further said that it is well konwn that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible. We are of the opinion that whatever was said in that case is in respect of an adversery system of litigation but so far as public interest litigation is concerned, we will say with all emphasis at our command that the present is a public interest litigation and litigation is not based on, adversary system, but the petitioner brings certain facts to the notice of the court. The petitioner and the state are to assist the court in arriving at a conclusion and if possible to take remedial action and grant relief to public at large and to ameliorate their conditions.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sivan Pillai vs B.C. Jose on 17 December, 1984

65. Though a number of decisions, viz. S.N. Balakrishna v. Fernandez AIR 1969 SC 1201, H.C. Mohanty v. Surendra AIR 1974 SC 47, Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed, AIR 1975 SC 290, Kanhaiyalal v. Mannalal, AIR 1976 SC 1886, M. Narayana Rao v. G. Venkata Reddy, AIR 1977 SC 208, K.M. Mani v. P.J. Antony, AIR 1979 SC 234, N. C. Zeliang v. Aju Newmai, AIR 1981 SC 8 and Manmohan Kalia v. Shri Yash AIR 1984 SC 1161, were cited by the counsel for the respondent, I am not quoting those decisions, except AIR 1984 SC 1161, perhaps the latest. Fazal Ali, J. said; --
Kerala High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harmel Singh vs Mohan Singh And Ors. on 22 March, 2002

13. It has been further argued that the proof which is brought on record must be beyond any reasonable doubt and that mere conjectures and surmises cannot be allowed to substantiate the allegations of corrupt practice. The petitioner-respondent No.l has not been able to substantiate his allegations by way of summoning the persons named in the FIR for establishing such act. Acceptance of corrupt practice is a serious matter arid, therefore, needs to be established by way of subjecting the evidence to litmus test. The evidence relied upon by the Tribunal cannot be termed as direct evidence and not even remotely linked evidence. The date of hearing of the case had fallen during the elections and that the application for settling the dispute between the parties had been made on account of indulgence of the elders and the common friends. However, the application was rejected and finally the FIR was quashed by this Court, which fact dewaters the approach adopted by the Tribunal. Reliance has been placed upto a judgment of the apex Court rendered in re; Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors., A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 89 and also in re; Manmohan Kalia v. Shri Yash and Ors., A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1161.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - J S Narang - Full Document
1   2 3 Next