Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 73 (4.29 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Sharan Yadav vs Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh And Ors on 30 October, 1984

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

In Ram Sharan Yadav V. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and others (AIR 1985 SC 24) it was held that the charge of a corrupt practice is in the nature of a criminal charge, and once it is proved to the satisfaction of a court that a candidate has been guilty of 'undue influence' then he is EL.PET.NO. 12 OF 2016 119 likely to be disqualified for a period of six years or such other period as the authority concerned under S.8A of the Act may think fit. Therefore the charge, if proved, entails a very heavy penalty in the form of disqualification, therefore the apex Court has held that the court must be very cautious in its approach.
Kerala High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deloitte Haskins And Sells Llp vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

222, 223) and Ram Sharan Yadav vs. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and Ors.: (1984) 4 SCC 649, (paragraph Nos.2 and 3) are relied upon to urge that proceedings under S. 140(5) are quasi criminal. Questions like whether the statutorily mandated disqualification in 2 nd proviso to S. 140(5) attracts double jeopardy? Whether the heading of section 140 or case law explaining the role of a "proviso" has any relevance? Whether proceedings u/S. 140(5) are quasi- criminal? stand answered above.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Kalpesh Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

222, 223) and Ram Sharan Yadav vs. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and Ors.: (1984) 4 SCC 649, (paragraph Nos.2 and 3) are relied upon to urge that proceedings under S. 140(5) are quasi criminal. Questions like whether the statutorily mandated disqualification in 2 nd proviso to S. 140(5) attracts double jeopardy? Whether the heading of section 140 or case law explaining the role of a "proviso" has any relevance? Whether proceedings u/S. 140(5) are quasi- criminal? stand answered above.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

N Sampath Ganesh vs Union Of India And Anr on 21 April, 2020

222, 223) and Ram Sharan Yadav vs. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and Ors.: (1984) 4 SCC 649, (paragraph Nos.2 and 3) are relied upon to urge that proceedings under S. 140(5) are quasi criminal. Questions like whether the statutorily mandated disqualification in 2 nd proviso to S. 140(5) attracts double jeopardy? Whether the heading of section 140 or case law explaining the role of a "proviso" has any relevance? Whether proceedings u/S. 140(5) are quasi- criminal? stand answered above.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 4 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Prem Singh Rathore, vs T. Raja Singh, on 11 March, 2022

"2. Several decisions of this Court have laid down various tests to determine a corrupt practice and the standard of proof required to establish such corrupt practices and it is not necessary for us to repeat the dictum laid down by this Court and the approach to be made in detail because the matter is no longer res integra but is concluded by a large number of authorities.
Telangana High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 1 - P N Rao - Full Document

Udayan Sen vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

222, 223) and Ram Sharan Yadav vs. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and Ors.: (1984) 4 SCC 649, (paragraph Nos.2 and 3) are relied upon to urge that proceedings under S. 140(5) are quasi criminal. Questions like whether the statutorily mandated disqualification in 2 nd proviso to S. 140(5) attracts double jeopardy? Whether the heading of section 140 or case law explaining the role of a "proviso" has any relevance? Whether proceedings u/S. 140(5) are quasi- criminal? stand answered above.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

S.Harcharn Singh vs S. Sajjan Singh And Ors on 29 November, 1984

ground of other facts, we are of the opinion that the case of appeal to religion by the respondent No. 3 has been proved in this case. A This conclusion becomes irresistible in view of absence of any express denial by Shri Parkash Singh Badal and in the absence of any explanation for not calling him as a witness on this point. Several decision of this Court have laid down various tests to determine the standard of proof required to establish corrupt practice. While insisting on standard of strict proof, the Court should not extend or stretch this doctrine to such an extreme extent as to make it well. nigh impossible to prove an allegation of corrupt practice. Such an approach would defeat and frustrate the very laudable and sacrosanct object of the Act in maintaining purity of the electoral process (See the observations in the case of Ram Sharan Yadav v. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and ors. (Civil Appeal No. 892 (NCE) of 1980).
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 32 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs Ramratan Chaturvedi And Ors on 22 December, 1989

It is an accepted principle that an election petition where corrupt practices are imputed must be regarded as proceedings of a quasi-criminal nature wherein strict proof is necessary. Since, a charge of corrupt practices, the consequence of which is not only to render the election of the returned candidate void, but in some cases to impose him a disqualification must be proved on appraisal of the evi- dence adduced by both the parties particularly by the elec- tion petitioner who assails the election of a returned candidate. This principle has been reiterated and approved in a series of decisions. See Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh, [1974] 1 SCR 52; Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed, [1974] 2 SCC 660; M. Narayana Rao v. G. Venkata Reddy & Others, [1977] 1 SCR 490; Ram Sharan Yadav v. Thankur Muneshwar Nath Singh & Others, [1984] 4 SCC 649; Ramji Prasad Singh v. Ram Bilas Jha & Others, [1977] 1 SCC 260 and Lalroukung v. Haokholal Thangjom & Anr., ELR Vol 41 Page 35.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 28 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Hari Sankaran vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

222, 223) and Ram Sharan Yadav vs. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and Ors.: (1984) 4 SCC 649, (paragraph Nos.2 and 3) are relied upon to urge that proceedings under S. 140(5) are quasi criminal. Questions like whether the statutorily mandated disqualification in 2 nd proviso to S. 140(5) attracts double jeopardy? Whether the heading of section 140 or case law explaining the role of a "proviso" has any relevance? Whether proceedings u/S. 140(5) are quasi- criminal? stand answered above.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next