Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (1.52 seconds)
Documents citing J. Devaiah vs Nagappa And Ors. on 14 April, 1964

Chekka Suryanarayana, vs Saka Rajulamma, on 3 September, 2021

Devaiah v. Nagappa7, the order allowing amendment of the election petition contained a direction regarding payment of costs. It was held that the application was allowed 3 AIR 1976 AP 205: (1975) 1 APLJ (HC) 283 4 AIR 1933 Mad 410: 1932 MWN 11 18: 142 IC 903 5 AIR 1964 Pat 275 1964 BUR 291 6 AIR 1949 Pat 491 27 Pat 187 7 AIR 1965 Mys 102 without any condition and that the order was not a conditional order and principle of estoppel was held inapplicable.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - D Ramesh - Full Document

Bhalla vs R.N. Aggarwal, District Judge, Delhi ... on 13 March, 1975

(35) In J. Devaiah v. Nagappa and others, 1966 D.E.C. Case No. 20 at page 164 a bench of the Mysore High Court observed that there is a fundamental difference between a material fact constituting a corrupt practice and the particulars of that corrupt practice. The ingredients of a corrupt practice can under no circumstances be considered as the particulars of that corrupt practice. It is in the light of the Law thus enunciated that one has to examine the contentions of the petitioner herein.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Samant N. Balakrishna Etc vs George Fernandez And Ors. Etc on 12 February, 1969

The allegation is not clear whether the Government servants were asked by the appellants to support their candidature, or whether they were asked to assist them in furtherance of their election prospects, and there is no allegation at all that the Government servants did, in fact, assist the appellants in the election. On these allegations, it is difficult to hold that the petition in fact raised a charge under s. 123 (8). It is a long jump from the petition as originally laid to the present amendment, wherein for the first time it is asserted that certain Mukhiasno Mukhias are mentioned in the petition-assisted the appellants in furtherance of their election prospects, and that thereby the corrupt practice mentioned 628 in s. 123 (8) had been committed. The new matters introduced by the amendment so radically alter the character of the petition as originally framed as to make it practically a new petition, and it was not within the power of the Tribunal to allow an amendment of that kind.,' It would appear from this that to make out a complete charge the facts necessary must be included in relation to a 'ground' as stated in the Act. Merely repeating the words of the statute is not sufficient. The petitioner must specify the ground i.e. to say the nature of the corrupt practice and the facts necessary to make out a charge. Although it has been said that the charge of corrupt practice is in the nature of quasi criminal charge, the trial of an election petition follows the procedure for the trial of a civil suit. The charge which is included in the petition must, therefore, specify the material facts of which the truth must be established. This is how the case was understood in numerous other cases, some of which we have already referred to. In particular see J. Devaiah v. Nagappa and Others(1) and Babulal Sharma v. Brijnarain Brajesh and Others(2).
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 340 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Bijendra Nath Srivastava vs Mayank Srivastava on 10 August, 1994

In J. Devaiah v. Nagappa7, the order allowing amendment of the election petition contained a direction regarding payment of costs. It was held that the application was allowed 3 AIR 1976 AP 205 : (1975) 1 APLJ (HC) 283 4 AIR 1933 Mad 410: 1932 MWN 11 18: 142 IC 903 5 AIR 1964 Pat 275 1964 BUR 291 6 AIR 1949 Pat 491 27 Pat 187 7 AIR 1965 Mys 102 133 without any condition and that the order was not a conditional order and principle of estoppel was held inapplicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 86 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

M/S.Crompton Greaves Ltd vs M/S.Navaneeth Hotels Pvt.Ltd on 25 February, 2015

13. The factum of having received the amount by the 1st respondent is not disputed before this Court at the time of O.P.(C) No.2550/2014 11 hearing. If that be so, there is no reason as to why the principle laid down in the above decision should not be applied to the facts of the case. Apart from all these, court below which had the opportunity to watch the demenour of PW1 felt that he should be given an opportunity to have his case adjudicated. The court below has given cogent and convincing reason for the same. It could not be said that the findings of the court below are either perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. It is a possible view. If that be so, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India even assuming a different view may be possible is not warranted.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Bhavadasan - Full Document

C.R.Mahesh vs R.Ramachandan on 15 May, 2016

"36. It would appear from this that to make out a complete charge the facts necessary must be included in relation to a 'ground' as stated in the Act. Merely repeating the words of the statute is not sufficient. The petitioner must specify the ground i.e. to stay the nature of the corrupt practice and the facts necessary to make out a charge. Although it has been said that the charge of corrupt practice is in the nature of quasi charge, the E.P.No.10/2016 24 trial of an election petition follows the procedure for the trial of a civil suit. The charge which is included in the petition must, therefore, specify the material facts of which the truth must be established. This is how the case was understood in numerous other cases, some of which we have already referred to. In particular see j. Devaiah v. Nagappa and Ors. 1965 Kar 102 and Babulal Sharma v. Brijnarain Brajesh and Ors. 1958 Madhya Pradesh 175(F.B.)".
Kerala High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.R.Mahesh vs R.Ramachandan on 15 May, 2016

"36. It would appear from this that to make out a complete charge the facts necessary must be included in relation to a 'ground' as stated in the Act. Merely repeating the words of the statute is not sufficient. The petitioner must specify the ground i.e. to stay the nature of the corrupt practice and the facts necessary to make out a charge. Although it has been said that the charge of corrupt practice is in the nature of quasi charge, the E.P.No.10/2016 24 trial of an election petition follows the procedure for the trial of a civil suit. The charge which is included in the petition must, therefore, specify the material facts of which the truth must be established. This is how the case was understood in numerous other cases, some of which we have already referred to. In particular see j. Devaiah v. Nagappa and Ors. 1965 Kar 102 and Babulal Sharma v. Brijnarain Brajesh and Ors. 1958 Madhya Pradesh 175(F.B.)".
Kerala High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next