Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Kripal Singh vs Darshan Singh And Ors. on 19 February, 1986

Madhu (Smt.) vs Smt. Bhanwari And Ors. on 16 July, 2003

In Kripal Singh v. Darshan Singh (9), a question came to be considered as to whether the rigor of law with regard to pleadings should be strictly followed in the election matter or can be relaxed. This Court held that the election petition should contain adequate statement of fill material facts on which the petitioner relies. Rule 82 of the Rules of 1994 which is applicable in the instant case provides that the election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, for verification of the pleadings.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 27 - Cited by 2 - H R Panwar - Full Document

Supyar Kanwar vs Civil Judge (S D ) Anr on 25 May, 2012

Counsel further submitted that in the case of Kripal Singh Vs. Darshan Singh [1986 WLN (UC) 202] this Court has held that the law with regard to inspection of ballot papers and recounting of votes is settled and a bare and bald assertion that the ballot papers were improperly rejected was an inadequate statement of material facts. Counsel has referred to para 13 of the Judgment to contend that in an election petition based on wrongful acceptance/ rejection of votes for one reason or another, it is necessary to state with precision with reference to ballot numbers as to which votes cast in favour of the election petitioner were improperly rejected and similarly which votes were wrongly accepted for the returned candidate. Mr. Gupta submits that a generalised and vague assertion of improper reception or rejection of votes would fail to satisfy the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for a properly constituted election petition such as under Rule 80 (d) (iii) of the 1994 Rules.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Amarjeet Singh vs Sampuran Singh on 12 April, 1991

If we examine this case on the touch-stone of the principle that has been laid down by this Court in Kripalsingh's case (supra), we are firmly of the view that sound foundation has been laid in the pleadings with regard to the improper rejection of the votes casted in favour of the respondent and improper acceptance of the votes in favour of the petitioner. In para 3(kha), it has been mentioned that 20 votes which have been rejected bore a seal in favour of the respondent and still they have not been counted by the Returning Officer in his favour. Thus, the clear cut assertion is that 20 ballot papers bore the seal in his favour. In his statement, the respondent has stated that 20 votes were casted in his favour because the seals were affixed on the line meant for column No. 4 which contained his election symbol 'Elephant'. Nobody else's symbol was printed below the symbol of elephant of the respondent and, therefore, the seal which was put either on the lower line of column No. 4 or below it should have been counted in his favour. It is true that in this case, a specific allegation has been made that the votes which were cast in favour of the respondent bore the seal in his favour. In these pleadings that were made by the respondent, it was mentioned in para 3(Gha) that 22 votes were such which did not bear the seal in favour of the petitioner but still they have been counted in his favour. When the respondent was examined, he has stated that 22 votes have wrongly been counted in favour of petitioner Amarjeet Singh because either there was a double seal or the seals were put on the line between columns Nos. 1 and 2 or columns Nos. 2 and 3. It is true that this allegation has not been made in the terms it has been stated by the witness in his statement but that hardly matters. It is only a piece of evidence in support of the allegation that it did not bear a clear cut seal in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, those votes could not have been counted in his favour because they did not bear any clear cut seal in favour of the petitioner showing or exhibiting an unambiguous intention to vote for him. If there is a double seal in any particular column, then also, the result is that it does not bear the seal in favour of the petitioner Amarjeet Singh and if the seal in on the boarder line of columns Nos. 1 and 2 or 2 and 3 then too, the matter becomes disputed and it cannot be said that those ballot papers bore a seal in favour of the petitioner. Thus, this evidence is just to explain the allegation that has been made. The allegation in the election petition is that 22 votes which have been counted in favour of the petitioner did not bear a seal in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, those votes could not have been counted in favour of the petitioner. The evidence produced by the respondent is not contradictory to the allegations made in the petition and, therefore, this testimony of the respondent cannot be treated at variance with the allegations made in the election petition. All details of the evidence by which an allegation will be substantiated need not be mentioned in the election petition. The allegation should be precise and must convey the meaning it wants to convey.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1