Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 71 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing Kamalam (M) vs Dr. V. A. Syed Mohamad on 8 March, 1978

Ashok S/O Tapiram Patil @ A.T. Nana Patil vs Dr. Gurumukh Mehrumal Jagwani, The ... on 8 November, 2006

21. The respondent No. 1 raised a contention that the petition without an affidavit as required under Proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act cannot be said to be a petition in the eye of law. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M. Kamalam v. Dr. V.A. Syed Mohammed (supra) also makes it clear that petition without an affidavit cannot be said to be a petition at all because the election petition is held to be one document, consisting of two parts i.e. election petition proper and a separate affidavit as required under Proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act. Petition in absence of one part (i.e. the affidavit) can be said to be an incomplete petition. Question thus remains as to whether such a petition which cannot be said to be a petition in the eye of law, can be dismissed or rejected by resorting to provisions of Order-VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 of Order-VII of the Code of Civil Procedure is also in mandatory form, which prescribes that the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M G Gaikwad - Full Document

Ashok Tapiram Patil @ A.T. Nana Patil vs Gurumukh Mehrumal Jagwani And Ors. on 8 November, 2006

21. The respondent No. 1 raised a contention that the petition without an affidavit as required under Proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act cannot be said to be a petition in the eye of law. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M. Kamalam v. Dr. V.A. Syed Mohammed (supra) also makes it clear that petition without an affidavit cannot be said to be a petition at all because the election petition is held to be one document, consisting of two parts i.e. election petition proper and a separate affidavit as required under Proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act. Petition in absence of one part (i.e. the affidavit) can be said to be an incomplete petition. Question thus remains as to whether such a petition which cannot be said to be a petition in the eye of law, can be dismissed or rejected by resorting to provisions of Order-VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 of Order-VII of the Code of Civil Procedure is also in mandatory form, which prescribes that the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 3 - M G Gaikwad - Full Document

Dinesh Kumar Jain @ Boss vs Bahadursingh Chouhan on 29 May, 2020

Moreover, the learned senior counsel for the Election Petitioner invited attention of this 5 court to the judgment of the Apex court in M. Kamalam v Dr. V.A. Syed Mohd. 1978 (2) SCC 615., to bring home the submission that substantial compliance with Section 81 (3) is sufficient and petition cannot be defeated for partial non- compliance with Section 81 (3) of the RP Act. (12). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of both the parties and have carefully perused the record including the copy of the Election Petition. (13). Before venturing into the merits of the application, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions which are attracted for adjudication of the present case. The enabling provision in RP Act is Section 86, the relevant portion of which, reads as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - S K Awasthi - Full Document

The Official Receiver, Salem vs C.B. Samanthagam Ammal And Ors. on 22 December, 1978

Rule 200 deals with the manner in which the sale has to be conducted. It states that it shall be done in the manner prescribed by the Code for sale of attached property. Hence, he contends that since the High Court has framed Rules adopting the procedure to be followed under the Civil Procedure Code, Order 21, Rule 85 comes into play and the Supreme Court held that when the amount is not deposited within time as provided under Rule 85, the sale itself will be a nullity. M. M. Shah v. Syed . The time provided therein is 15 days from the date of the sale of the property.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dr. (Smt.) Shipra vs Shri Shanti Lal on 30 August, 1994

In M. Kamalam v. Dr. V.A. Syed Mohammed AIR 1978 SC 840, the election of the returned candidate to the Lok Sabha from Kojikode Constituency was challenged inter alia on the ground of corrupt practice. The copy of the petition, served on the respondent, was signed and verified and was accompanied with the affidavit in support of the allegations of corrupt practice and their particulars. The signature of the petitioner, by way of authentication, appeared at the foot of the copy of the affidavit but there was no such signature separately appended at the foot of the copy of the election petition. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent that since the copy of the election petition has not been attested by the petitioner under her own signatures to be a true copy and, therefore, the compliance of Subsection (3) of Section 81 of the Act has not been made and hence the election petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Act. In repelling the contention, raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Court observed that the second part of Sub-section (3) of Section 81 has been complied with as the copy of the petition and the affidavit along-with it, as required by law, constituted one document and the signatures of the petitioner in proof of the affidavit is sufficient compliance of the requirement of Sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act. The Court further held that, in fact, the copy of the affidavit constituted the end portion of the copy of the election petition and the signature placed by the petitioner at the foot of the copy of the affidavit was, therefore, clearly referable to the entire copy and it authenticated the whole of the copy of the election petition to be the 'true copy'. In the case of M. Kamalam, also, the sufficient compliance of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 81 was made as on the last page of the affidavit, attestation regarding the true and correct copy, was made and the mistake, pointed-out by the respondent, was found insignificant or minimal.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 42 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Sri Mohan vs Sri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat on 25 May, 1994

He relied upon M. Kamalam v. Dr. V.A. Syed Mohammed, AIR 1978 SC 840 para 5, U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran, AIR 1990 SC 924, F.A. Sapa v. Singora, AIR 1991 SC 1557 : (1991 AIR SCW 1492) para 28 and K.C. Madhava Kurup v. K. Muraleedharan, AIR 1991 Kerala 20 para 7 (end). The petitioner does not say that he was present in all the public meetings held by the respondent on October 27,1993. It is his case that the speech given by the respondent at Falna was taped by Babulal. As he was not present in the public meeting held at Falna, it cannot be said that the speech was tape recorded in his presence by Babulal. This portion of the affidavit could be verified on the basis of information and not on the basis of knowledge.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri G Devarajegowda vs Sri Prajwal Revenna @ Prajwal R on 31 January, 2020

20(iii) This issue was specifically considered in M.KAMALAM vs. V.A. SYED MOHAMMED, (1978) 2 SCC 659 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, "It would, therefore, be seen that if a schedule or annexure is an integral part of the election petition, it must be signed by the petitioner and verified, since it forms part of the election petition. The subject-matter of sub- section (2) is thus a schedule or annexure forming part of the election petition and hence it is placed in Section 83 which deals with contents of an election petition. Similarly, and for the same reasons, the affidavit referred to in the proviso to Section 83, sub-section (1) also forms part of the election petition. The election petition is in truth and reality one document consisting of two parts, one being the election petition proper and the other being the affidavit referred to in the proviso to Section 83, sub- section (1). The copy of the election petition required to be filed under the first part of sub- section (3) of Section, 81, would, therefore, on a fair reading of that provision along with Section 83, include a copy of the affidavit. That 27 is why the appellant attached a copy of the affidavit to the copy of the election petition proper and filed the two as one single document along with the election petition."
Karnataka High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - J M Cunha - Full Document

Purushottam vs Returning Officer, Amravati And Others on 29 January, 1991

10. Mr. Deshpande has contended that no exception could be taken to the copy of the petition in the present case merely because the Notary's endorsement on the copy of the affidavit is absent. According to him, the copy and the affidavit are quite distinct and separate. He has advanced this argument relying on the provisions of Ss. 81 and 83 of the Act. According to him, the affidavit is required to be filed under Sec. 83 of the Act when there are allegations of corrupt practices. Filing of an affidavit is not required under S. 81, he contended. According to him, the plain wording of sub-section (3) of S. 81 shows that every copy has to be attested by the petitioner to be a 'true copy' and, therefore, while interpreting sub-section (3) of S. 81, S. 83 cannot be imported. There is no substance in this contention. The Supreme Court in , M. Kamalam v. Dr. V. A. Syed Mohammed, has observed as under (at page 844 of AIR) :
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Ashraf Kokkur vs K.V.Abdul Khader Etc. on 29 August, 2014

In M. Kamalam v. V.A. Syed Mohammed this Court followed Sahodrabai Rai and held that a schedule or an annexure which is an integral part of an election petition must comply with the provisions of Section 83(2) of the Act. Similarly, the affidavit referred to in the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act where the election petition alleges corrupt practices by the returned candidate also forms a part of the election petition. If the affidavit, at the end of the election petition is attested as a true copy, then there is sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 81(3) of the Act and would tantamount to attesting the election petition itself.”
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next