Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 301 (3.05 seconds)
Documents citing Udhav Singh vs Madhav Rao Scindia on 10 October, 1975

Pandia Rajan. K vs S.M.Nasar

In Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia [(1977) 1 SCC 511 : AIR 1976 SC 744 : (1976) 2 SCR 246] this http://www.judis.nic.in 64 Court held that failure to plead even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and incomplete allegations of such a charge are liable to be struck off under Order VI Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure. If the petition is based solely on those allegations which suffer from lack of material facts, the petition is liable to be summarily rejected for want of a cause of action.
Madras High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - M V Muralidaran - Full Document

Subhramanayam Jaishankar ... vs Gaurav Hemantbhai Pandya on 4 February, 2020

21. It is significant to note that as per Section 80 of the said Act, no Page 23 of 35 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 00:47:27 IST 2020 C/EA/18/2019 CAV JUDGMENT election can be called in question except by an Election Petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II, Part IV of the said Act. As per the Section 2(1)(d) 'election' means an election to fill the seat or seats in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of Legislature of a State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Admittedly, two separate elections have been held pursuant to the two separate impugned notifications dated 18.06.2019 in respect of two separate seats having fallen vacant on account of two members of the Council of States having been elected as the members of House of People in May, 2019. Hence, the petitioner could not have challenged the two elections held separately pursuant to the two separate notifications by filing one common petition, and that too without joining all returned candidates as per requirement of Section 82 of the Act. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Udhav Singh versus Madhav Rao Scindia (supra) the fundamental principle behind the provisions contained in Section 82 is of natural justice i.e. nobody should be condemned unheard, and that disobedience of this mandate inexorably attracts Section 86 which commands the High Court to dismiss the Election Petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 82.
Gujarat High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Jugalsinh Mathurji Lokhandwala vs Chandrikaben Kanjibhai Chudasama on 4 February, 2020

21. It is significant to note that as per Section 80 of the said Act, no election can be called in question except by an Election Petition Page 23 of 35 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 00:46:05 IST 2020 C/EA/16/2019 CAV JUDGMENT presented in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II, Part IV of the said Act. As per the Section 2(1)(d) 'election' means an election to fill the seat or seats in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of Legislature of a State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Admittedly, two separate elections have been held pursuant to the two separate impugned notifications dated 18.06.2019 in respect of two separate seats having fallen vacant on account of two members of the Council of States having been elected as the members of House of People in May, 2019. Hence, the petitioner could not have challenged the two elections held separately pursuant to the two separate notifications by filing one common petition, and that too without joining all returned candidates as per requirement of Section 82 of the Act. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Udhav Singh versus Madhav Rao Scindia (supra) the fundamental principle behind the provisions contained in Section 82 is of natural justice i.e. nobody should be condemned unheard, and that disobedience of this mandate inexorably attracts Section 86 which commands the High Court to dismiss the Election Petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 82.
Gujarat High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 1 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Mr. Umesha G.B vs Mr. H.A. Iqbal Hussain on 14 March, 2024

15. It would thus appear that the election petition was rejected mainly on the ground that it did not disclose the cause of action as according to the learned trial Judge the allegations regarding corrupt practice were vague and did not disclose "material facts and full particulars" of the corrupt practice alleged. It is evident that the learned trial Judge did not distinguish between the "material facts" and the "material particulars" of allegations regarding corrupt practices as defined under Section 123 of the Act. The law on the point is well settled which appears to have not been taken note of or appreciated by the learned trial Judge. After referring to various pronouncements of this Court including cases in Balwan Singh v. Lakshmi Narain [AIR 1960 SC 770 : (1960) 3 SCR 91] , Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez [(1969) 3 SCC 238] , Virendra Kumar Saklecha v. Jagjiwan [(1972) 1 SCC 826] , Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia [(1977) 1 SCC
Karnataka High Court Cites 121 - Cited by 0 - R V Hosmani - Full Document

Subhramanayam Jaishankar ... vs Pareshkumar Dhirajlal Dhanani on 4 February, 2020

So also in Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, [1977] 1 SCC. 511, the law has been enunciated that all the primary facts which must be proved by a party to establish a cause of action or his defence are material facts. In the context of a charge of corrupt practice it would mean that the basic facts which constitute the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged by the petitioner must be specified in order to succeed on the charge. Whether in an election petition a particular fact is material or not and as such required to be pleaded is dependent on the nature of the charge levelled and the circumstances of the case. All the facts which are essential to clothe the petition with complete cause of action must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact would amount to disobedience of the mandate of Section 83(1)(a). An election petition therefore can be and must be dismissed if it suffers from any such vice. The first ground of challenge must therefore fail."
Gujarat High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Bimalangshu Roy vs Kamaaalendu Bhattacharjee on 21 November, 2003

20. From the law laid down in Udhav Singh (AIR 1976 SC 744) (supra), it is also clear that all the primary facts, which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are "material facts". In the context of charge of corrupt practice, "material facts" would mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged, which the petitioner is bound to substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. Whether in an election petition, a particular fact is material or not and, as such, is required to be pleaded is a question, which depends on the nature of the charge levelled, the ground relied upon and the special circumstances of the case. In short, all those facts, which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action, are "material facts", which must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to non-compliance of the mandate of Section 93(1)(a). "Particulars", on the other hand, are "the details of the case set up by the party". "Material particulars" within the contemplation of Clause (b) of Section 83(1) would, therefore, mean all the details which are necessary to amplify, refine and embellish the material facts already pleaded in the petition in compliance with the requirements of Clause (a). "Particulars" serve the purpose of furnishing finishing touches to the basic contours of a picture already drawn to make it full, more detailed and more informative.
Gauhati High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - I Ansari - Full Document

Rangnath Mishra vs Shri Ramesh Chand on 28 January, 2020

In Udhav Singh vs. Madhav Rao Scindia, (supra) (paras-38, 39 and 40), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all those primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are "material facts". All facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action are "material facts" which must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of sec. 83(1) (a). "Particulars" are the details of the case set up by the party. "Material particulars" are the details which are necessary to amplify, refine and embellish the material facts already pleaded in the petition in compliance with the requirements of clause (a). 'Particulars' serve the purpose of finishing touches to the basic contours of a picture already drawn, to make it full, more detailed and more informative.
Allahabad High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 0 - S P Kesarwani - Full Document

Mukat Behari Lal vs Shivcharan Singh And Ors. on 31 March, 1978

15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the pleadings with meticulous care in the light of the rival contentions raised before me. I am not required to consider in detail all the authorities cited by the parties before me on the point of distinction between the words 'material facts' and 'material particulars' because their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia (AIR 1976 SC 744) (supra), after considering almost all the cases on the point have finally settled the law. Their Lordships, after quoting the relevant provisions of Section 83 of the Act, observed in paras 37, 38, 39 and 40 of the judgment as under:--
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next