Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 147 (2.90 seconds)
Documents citing Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972

Ishwardas Rohani vs Alok Mishra & Ors on 3 May, 2012

Should the Court refuse to enquire into those allegations merely because the appellant or someone who prepared his brief did not know the language of the law. We have no hesitation in answering those questions in the negative. The implications of the rule of law are manifold.” All that this Court held is that the particulars of a corrupt practice can be supplied by amendment provided that the basic facts constituting the corrupt practice are pleaded. This Court held in Raj Narain (supra):
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 5 - A Kabir - Full Document

T.Siddiqu vs P.Karunakaran on 10 April, 2015

In Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi[AIR 1972 SC 1302](supra) by relying on the decision in Hardwari Lal's case noted supra, the Apex Court held that the facts stated in the petition relating to any corrupt practice must be sufficient to constitute a cause of action and in other words the facts must bring out all the ingredients of the corrupt practice alleged. It has been held that if the facts stated fail to satisfy that requirement, then they do not give rise to a triable issue, and such a defect cannot be cured by any amendment after the period of limitation for filing the election petition.
Kerala High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - B K Pasha - Full Document

F.A. Sapa Etc. Etc vs Singora And Ors. Etc on 10 May, 1991

The brings us to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 83, which provides that an election petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down by the Code for the verification of the pleadings. Under section 83(2) any schedule or annexure to the pleading must be similarly verified. Order 6 Rule 15 is the relevant provision in the Code. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 says that the person verifying shall specify with reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies on his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true. The verification must be signed by the person making it and must state the date on and the place at which it was singed. The defect in the verification can be (i) of a formal natural and not very substantial (ii) one which substantially complies with the requirements and (iii) that which is material but capable of being cured. It must be remembered that the object of requiring verification of an election petition is clearly to fix the responsibility for the averments and allegations in the petition on the person signing the verification and at the same time discouraging wild and irresponsible allegations unsupported by facts. Then comes the proviso which provides that in cases where corrupt practice is alleged in the petition, the petition shall also be supported by an affidavit in the prescribed form i.e. From No. 25 prescribed by Rule 94A of the Rules. Lastly sub- section (2) of section 83 lays down that any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be similarly signed and verified. Two question arise: (i) what is the consequence of a a defective or incomplete verification and (ii) what is the consequence of a defective affidavit? It was also said that the verification clause in regard to averments or allegations based on information ought to disclose the source of information which had not been done in this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 180 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Sandeep Grover vs . Smt. Priyanka Batra on 31 October, 2015

I find no force in the submission of Senior Counsel for the defendant that an application for interrogatories under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC should be allowed even after framing of issues, merely because such situation obtaining was not adversely commented upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Narain Vs. Indira Nehru Gandh [AIR 1972 SC 1302]. It is well settled that every fact in a decision of the Supreme Court can not partake the character of a ratio decidendi with binding precedential value. For a binding ratio, the enunciation of law attributed to the Apex Court should have been specifically set out before the court, argued and conclusions arrived thereon on reasons recorded by the Apex Court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Dr. Narottam Mishra vs Election Commission Of India And Ors. on 18 May, 2018

"In Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi [1976]2SCR347 this Court reaffirmed the above view and taking note of the Amendment Act 58 of 1974, opined that voluntary expenditure incurred by friends, relations, or sympathisers of the candidate or the candidates' political party are not required to be included in the candidate's return of expenses, unless the expenses were incurred in the circumstances from which it could be positively inferred that the successful candidate had undertaken that he would reimburse the party or the person who incurred the expense... Noticing that during an election, the sponsoring or supporting political parties as well as friends, sympathisers and well-wishers do sometimes incur expenditure not only without the consent of the concerned candidate but even without his knowledge this court opined that the successful candidate cannot be clothed with all such expenses to suffer the disqualification."
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next