Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (6.82 seconds)
Documents citing Manubhai Nandlal Amorsey vs Popatlal Manilal Joshi And Ors. on 4 January, 1969

Bhartendra Singh vs Ramsahai Pandey And Ors. on 9 July, 1971

AIR 1969 SC 395; Manubhai v. Popatlal. AIR 1969 SC 734 and AIR 1969 SC 851 the question under consideration was not that of the use of cow as a religious symbol. but in each of these cases, there was exhortation to the electors that unless they voted in a particular manner, they would be guilty of committing the sin of 'Gau-Hatva' which amounts to an attempt to induce voters to believe that unless they voted as exhorted they would become the objects of divine displeasure or spiritual censure, falling within the mischief of Section 123(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. The relevant observations of Their Lordships, which I have already referred to above, are as under:--
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ambanna Hanumappa Naik vs Sharnappa And Ors. on 11 October, 1972

12. The enunciation relied on in Manubhai's case clearly refers to an amendment sought at a late stage of the trial of an election petition. The policy of the election law is that cases of corrupt practices would call for investigation in order to maintain the purity of elections and consequently of the Government, and public interest would also be sub-served by it. It is seen from the facts and circumstances earlier enumerated that there has not been any undue delay in making the application. There is also no serious want of diligence on the part of the petitioner. As regards the knowledge attributed to the petitioner as to the facts and particulars, I should think it would not be a sufficient circumstance to prevent an amendment as regards "particulars" being allowed. It also seems to me that there is a built in safeguard in the statutory provision of Section 86(5) in that no amendment of 'material facts' is permitted after the period of limitation prescribed for the presentation of an election petition, Moreover amendments ought not to be refused whenever it is reasonably possible to compensate the party affected thereby by an award of compensatory costs and there is not any statutory inhibition in regard to it, and a case of total want of good faith on the part of the person seeking the amendment is not established. I also find it difficult to conclude that on account of prior knowledge of facts and particulars of the petitioner, even if true, the application deserves to be rejected as contended. I am also satisfied that there has not been any undue want of diligence on the part of the petitioner in making the present application. The contention of the first respondent in this behalf must, therefore, fail.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.Mohan (Deceased) vs M.K.Azhagiri on 22 November, 2013

18. The averments contained in para 4 pertaining to Ground I do not satisfy the test prescribed in Manubhai Amorsey v. Popatlal Manilal Joshi and Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh3. The most important test which remained unsatisfied is as regards the omission to satisfy in what manner the assistance was obtained and procured by the election candidate for promoting the prospects of his election.
Madras High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 3 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

Dated :: 02-12-2 vs A.Lazar on 2 December, 2011

18. The averments contained in para 4 pertaining to Ground I do not satisfy the test prescribed in Manubhai Amorsey v. Popatlal Manilal Joshi and Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh3. The most important test which remained unsatisfied is as regards the omission to satisfy in what manner the assistance was obtained and procured by the election candidate for promoting the prospects of his election.
Madras High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy vs Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju And 7 ... on 2 August, 2016

(1) What are material facts and particulars? Material facts are facts which if established would give the petitioner the relief asked for. The test required to be answered is whether the Court could have given a direct verdict in favour of the election petitioner in case the returned candidate had not appeared to oppose the election petition on the basis of the facts pleaded in the petition. Manubhai Nandlal Amarsey v. Popatlal Manilal Joshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0265/1969: [1969]3 SCR 217.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - U D Rao - Full Document

R.Sakkarapani vs K.Karuppasamy

18. The averments contained in para 4 pertaining to Ground I do not satisfy the test prescribed in Manubhai Amorsey v. Popatlal Manilal Joshi and Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh [(1972) 1 SCC 214 : AIR 1972 SC 515 : (1972) 2 SCR 742] . The most important test which remained unsatisfied is as regards the omission to satisfy in what manner the assistance was obtained and procured by the election candidate for promoting the prospects of his election.
Madras High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - M V Muralidaran - Full Document

Page No.# 1/7 vs Moon Swarnakar on 2 June, 2025

18. The averments contained in para 4 pertaining to Ground I do not satisfy the test prescribed in Manubhai Amorsey v. Popatlal Manilal Joshi and Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh. The most important test which remained unsatisfied is as regards the omission to satisfy in what manner the assistance was obtained and procured by the election candidate for promoting the prospects of his election. All that has been stated is:
Gauhati High Court Cites 105 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document
1