Saleem Masood Son Of Sri Maqsood Ali vs Rasheed Masood Son Of Qazi Masood on 25 May, 2007
was distinguished and it was pointed out that M. Karunanidhi (supra) did not depart from the ratio laid down in Sahodrabai Rai (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 102 (1.80 seconds)Documents citing
M. Karunanidhi Etc vs H.V. Hande & Ors. Etc on 31 March, 1983
Dr. V.C. Misra vs Dr. Raj Kumar Sanjay Singh And Ors. on 24 May, 1985
The decision in Sahodrabai's case would, therefore, not apply to this case which will be governed by the latter decision of the Supreme Court in M. Karunanidhi v. H. V. Handa and others (supra) in which the photograph annexed to the election petition was held to be a part of the petition and not a separate document. The non-supply of that photograph to the respondent along with the copy of the petition was found sufficient to result in the dismissal of the election petition.
Dr. Omprakash Soni vs Ashok Kumar Bhargava And Ors. on 28 March, 1995
14. Reliance was again placed on a decision given by the Supreme Court, reported as M. Karunanidhi v. H.V. Handa, AIR 1983 SC 558. This decision is not attracted to the facts of the present case. The question was with regard to proper deposit of security. This is not an issue in the present case.
M.L.Ravi vs Election Commission Of India on 25 February, 2022
18. Coming to the case in hand, Rule 8 of the Rules of Madras High Court
Election Petitions, 1967, mandates that an election petitioner before presenting
his election petition shall deposit in the High Court in cash a sum of two
thousand rupees towards security for the costs as provided under Section 117 of
the RP Act, and shall produce the receipt of the same to the Registrar at the time
of presentation of the petition. Though the requirement under Section 117 of the
RP Act, regarding making of a deposit of cash towards security is mandatory,
the mode of deposit in the High Court in accordance with the rules of the High
Court is directory, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in M. Karunanidhi
v. H.V. Hande, (1983) 2 SCC 473. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pay the
security amount for the cost as mandated under sub-section (1) of Section 117 of
the RP Act r/w Rule 8 of the Rules of Madras High Court Election Petitions,
1967 nor by any other mode. In such circumstances, Court has no other option
than dismissing this election petition, and it is liable only to be rejected in limine
for non compliance of the mandatory requirements. So far as the submission of
the learned counsel for petitioner, regarding the reasons for non payment, it is to
be noted that, within a period of one week after the presentation of the this
19 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.7 of 2021 &
E.L.P.(Filling) No.54183 of 2021
Election Petition, the petitioner filed another Election Petition duly complying
with all the mandatory requirements which was numbered accordingly. Thus, the
reason assigned by the petitioner for non compliance of making deposit of cash
towards security cannot be accepted. That apart, the court has no power to
condone the above requirement.
Ramesh Chand .....Non vs Mahender Singh ... on 25 April, 2019
Moreover, the decision in M. Karunanidhi v. H. V. Hande (1983) 2
SCC 473 : (AIR 1983 SC 558), on which heavy reliance is placed
by the applicant, no way departs from the ratio laid down by the
Sahodrabai's case (supra). The aforesaid case, rests on the
ground that the document (pamphlet) was expressly referred to
in the election petition and thus became an integral part of the
same and ought to have been served on the respondent. It is,
::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 22:14:19 :::HCHP
15
therefore, manifest that the facts of the instant case are clearly
distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
Ajay Maken vs Adesh Kumar Gupta & Anr on 11 December, 2012
In M. Karunanidhi v. Dr. H.V. Hande & Ors., (1983) 2 SCC 473, the
facts are as follows:
Ram Das Singh vs Balram Singh And Others on 4 December, 2006
500/- with the Tahsildar, who is not a specified officer
as defined under Rule 2 (d) of the Rules, 1995. Deposit
of the security amount is a mandatory requirement as
held by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Karunanidhi
Vs. Dr. H.V. Hande and others etc. (supra). The deposit
of the security amount with any officer, other than the
specified officer, may be a Sub-ordinate officer, does
not satisfy the mandatory requirements of the provisions
of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995. Thus, in absence of
compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Rules,
1995, this petition ought not to have been tried on
merits, even otherwise the same would have been
dismissed at threshold. Thus, it is not necessary to go
into merits. The petition filed before the specified
authority is accordingly dismissed.
Ravichandran vs Notavailable on 16 September, 2013
Further, it is to be noted that the Apex Court in the other recent decision made in G.M.Siddeshwar case as discussed supra has also held that merely because the affidavit was defective, it cannot be said that the petition filed is not an election petition as understood by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Thus, the Apex Court has held that as long as there is substantial compliance with the statutory form of the affidavit, there is no reason to summarily dismiss an election petition on this ground. In the very same decision it is also held that an election petition cannot be summarily dismissed under Section 86 of the Representation of People Act for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 thereof.
Smt. Latha G. Krishna vs The Returning Officer, Dasarahalli ... on 11 July, 2003
13. The decisions of the Supreme Court in K. KAMARAJA NADAR vs KURSU THEVAR, M. KARUNANIDHI vs H.V. HANDA and M.Y. GHORPADE vs SHIVAJI RAO M. POAL AND OTHERS (Supra) referred to earlier deal with provisions of Section 117 of the Representation of People Act and declare them to be mandatory as the consequence of the violation of the said provision prescribed by Section 86 of the Act leaves no option but to treat the provisions regarding deposit mandatory. If the non-making of the deposit under Section 117 can be a ground for dismissal of the election petition under Section 86, it would be difficult to see how deposit under Section 117 could be said to be directory. The absence of any provision in the Act and the Rule with which we are dealing in the instant case providing for the consequence of violation of Rule 69 therefore places the present case on an entirely different footing. The making of the deposit may itself be said to be directory in nature since there is no provision which prescribes the consequences for non-deposit. That does not however necessarily mean that the Court dealing with an election petition under the Municipalities Act cannot insist upon the making of a deposit in terms of Rule 69 or that the deposit under the said provision becomes discretionary or optional. The provisions of a Rule that prescribe the procedure for filing and trial of election petitions even when the same is directory has to be followed and the Court trying any such election petition would be entitled to insist upon compliance even with a directory provision of the Rules that regulate the trial before it. There is however a difference between enforcing a directory provision because it is statutory in character and treating the violation of such a provision as fatal on the ground that the provision is mandatory. Suffice it to say that even if the provisions of Rule 69 are held to be mandatory they can be so only in so far as the essence of the requirement prescribed by the said rule is concerned. The essence of the requirement is that a deposit towards fee must be made. The mode of the making of the deposit would be entirely inconsequential, as it cannot be anything but directory. Indeed if the mode of making the deposit under Section 117 of the Representation of People Act has been held to be directory, it is difficult to see how the mode of deposit in the case of Rule 69 can be said to be mandatory. It is noteworthy that the election petitioner had paid in addition to the deposit of Rs. 200/- a Court fee of Rs. 200/- in the form of adhesive stamps. If fee has an element of quid pro quo, the payment of Court fee had taken care of that requirement. It is difficult to discover the rationale underlying the deposit of a fee of Rs. 200/- over and above the Court fee of Rs. 200/- already paid by the petitioner. That aspect need not however detain us for the election petitioner had without questioning the wisdom of Rule 69 requiring deposit made a deposit of Rs 200/- on the date he presented the election petition. That deposit before the Court trying the election petition was in my opinion a substantial compliance with the provisions of Rule 69. The trial Court was in error in holding otherwise.
Sri Kotla Vijayabhaskara Reddy And Ors. vs Smt. Renuka Choudary on 2 November, 1993
78. I have no doubt in my mind, having regard to the Judgments in Karunakaran's case (5 supra) and Kaninanidhi's Case (8 supra) that the annexures mentioned in 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122 etc., from integral part of the election petition including the video cassette. Failure to file the annexures and the video cassette along with the election petition on 14-6-1993 leaves this Court with no other alternative but to dismiss the election petition. It is not correct to say that the videograph is a piece of evidence. It is incorporated in the election petition by reference and it is clearly mentioned that the videograph correctly discloses the identity of the persons involved in the events and incidents. Therefore, even on the basis of the allegations referred to above, it is necessary to look at the videograph for knowing the correct and full details of the events and incidents involving rigging.