Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 692 (1.91 seconds)
Documents citing Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi on 25 April, 1986

Pandia Rajan. K vs S.M.Nasar

(1972) 2 SCR 742] and Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi [1986 Supp SCC 315 : AIR 1986 SC 1253 : 1986 All LJ 625] . Allegations contained in sub-paras 1, 2 and 3 of para 53(1)(E) raise a grievance that though the appellant had not appointed any counting agent but still certain persons acted as his counting agents and the Returning Officer did not hold any inquiry into his complaint. Sub-para 4 states that in the Amethi Constituency, there was fear psychosis and “it looked as if the police and other government officials wanted to help Rajiv Gandhi”. Sub-paras 5 to 8 refer to certain illegalities and irregularities alleged to have been committed by certain persons on the polling day in helping voters to cast their votes and it further alleged that some persons cast votes 100 to 200 times and their signatures were not obtained. These allegations do not make out any charge of corrupt practice within the provisions of Section 123(7) of the Act. As regards para 53(1)(G) it purports to allege a corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Act on the ground that Rajiv Gandhi spent Rs 3,15,500 in excess of the amount permitted under the law. We have already discussed this matter earlier.”
Madras High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - M V Muralidaran - Full Document

R.Sakkarapani vs K.Karuppasamy

28. In para 53(1)(E) of the election petition the appellant stated that as per Section 123(7) of the Representation of People Act, Rajiv Gandhi's workers with his consent took help from the government officers and high police officers and people of government departments for securing votes of the electors. These officials flouted all rules and laws particulars of which are as under. Thereafter particulars of the help taken from the government officers are detailed in sub-paras (1) to (8). A corrupt practice as contemplated by Section 123(7) contemplates obtaining or procuring by a candidate or his election agent, assistance from the government servants belonging to the classes specified in sub-section (7) of Section 123 for the furtherance of the prospect of the candidate's election. In order to constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(7), it is essential to clothe the petition with a cause of action which would call for an answer from the returned candidate and it should therefore plead mode of assistance, measure of assistance and all facts pertaining to the assistance. The pleading should further indicate the kind or form of assistance obtained and in what manner the assistance was obtained or procured or attempted to be procured by the candidate for promoting the prospect for his election. The election petitioner must state with exactness the time of assistance, the manner of assistance and the persons from whom assistance was obtained or procured by the candidate as held by this Court in Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh[(1972) 1 SCC 214 : AIR 1972 SC 515 : (1972) 2 SCR 742] and Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi [1986 Supp SCC 315 : AIR 1986 SC 1253 : 1986 All LJ 625] . Allegations contained in sub-paras 1, 2 and 3 of para 53(1)(E) raise a grievance that though the appellant had not appointed any counting agent but still certain persons acted as his counting agents and the Returning Officer did not hold any inquiry into his complaint. Sub-para 4 states that in the Amethi Constituency, there was fear psychosis and it looked as if the police and other government officials wanted to help Rajiv Gandhi. Sub-paras 5 to 8 refer to certain illegalities and irregularities alleged to have been committed by certain persons on the polling day in helping voters to cast their votes and it further alleged that some persons cast votes 100 to 200 times and their signatures were not obtained. These allegations do not make out any charge of corrupt practice within the provisions of Section 123(7) of the Act. As regards para 53(1)(G) it purports to allege a corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Act on the ground that Rajiv Gandhi spent Rs 3,15,500 in excess of the amount permitted under the law. We have already discussed this matter earlier.
Madras High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - M V Muralidaran - Full Document

Rahul Vasudevbhai Vyas vs Hemang Yogeshbhai Joshi on 12 December, 2024

20. So far as the allegations of "Corrupt practice" are concerned, the respondent no. 1 was required to make concise statement of material facts as to how the appellant had indulged into "Corrupt practice" of undue influence by directly or indirectly interfering or attempted to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right. Mere bald and vague allegations without any basis would not be sufficient compliance of the requirement of making a concise Page 48 of 53 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Mon Dec 23 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 27 22:19:55 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/EP/3/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/12/2024 undefined statement of the "material facts" in the Election Petition. The material facts which are primary and basic facts have to be pleaded in support of the case set up by the Election petitioner to show his cause of action. Any omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action entitling the returned candidate to pray for dismissal of Election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC read with Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act. The said legal position has been well settled by this Court in Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi, wherein this Court after referring to the earlier pronouncements in Samant N. Balkrishna and Another vs. George Fernandez and Others and Shri Udhav Singh vs. Madhav Rao Scindia, observed that the omission of a single material fact would lead to incomplete cause of action, and that an Election petition without the material facts is not an Election petition at all. It was further held that all the facts which are essential to clothe the petition with complete cause of action must be pleaded and omission of even a single material fact would amount to disobedience of the mandate of Section 83(1)(a) of the Act and an Election petition can be and must be dismissed, if it suffers from any such vice.
Gujarat High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - N Kariel - Full Document

Saleem Masood Son Of Sri Maqsood Ali vs Rasheed Masood Son Of Qazi Masood on 25 May, 2007

In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi (supra), the appellant, an elector from the Amethi Constituency, challenged the election of the Respondent as a Member of the Lok Sabha from the said Constituency on the ground of alleged corrupt practices as defined by the R.P. Act, 1951. The High Court dismissed the Election Petition on the ground that it did not comply with the mandatory requirement to furnish material facts and particulars enjoined by Section 83 of the R.P. Act, 1951 and that it did not disclose a cause of action.
Allahabad High Court Cites 117 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yallurkar Kisan Sidray vs Returning Officer on 16 April, 1992

29. From what is stated hereinabove, it is clear that Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act is mandatory, whatever may be the ground on which the election is challenged. Under the said provision, the concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies is a must. The material facts are facts which if established would give the petitioner the relief asked for. The test required to be answered is whether the Court could have given a direct verdict in favour of the election petitioner in case, the returned candidate has not appeared to oppose the election petition, on the basis of the facts pleaded in the petition (Azar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi vide Supra).
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Badan Rai vs Rajiv Ranjan Singh@Lallan Sing on 9 April, 2014

(supra), Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi (supra) were rendered earlier. The fact that aforesaid decisions were rendered earlier will have no bearing on the principle of appreciation of evidence. In this connection it has to be appreciated that evidence of Patna High Court E.P. No.3 of 2009 dt.09-04-2014 138 prosecution witnesses asserting capturing of booth preventing a voter from casting his vote is required to be appreciated in the light of the corroborative evidence of the voter who has been prevented from casting his vote on a particular booth with reference to the contemporaneous record i.e. 17-A Voters‟ Register maintained during the course of election and other documents. In the instant case prosecution witnesses have only claimed that particular booths were captured in their presence. The witnesses, however, have neither indicated the name of the voters who were prevented from casting their vote nor the name of the witnesses nor those prevented from casting their vote has been mentioned either in the contemporaneous document or in the Election Petition, as such, it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of P.Ws. that particular booths were captured. The charge of booth capturing is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the facts of the present case and the nature of the evidence led, I am satisfied that there is reasonable doubt about the veracity of the deposition of the eye- witnesses.
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V N Sinha - Full Document

Ram Autar Shastri vs Khurshid Alam Khan And Anr. on 13 August, 1986

7. Upon the question arising recently in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 All LJ 625 (SC) it was reiterated that an election petition without the material facts relating to a corrupt practice is not an election petition at all. All the primary facts which must be proved by a party to establish a cause of action of his defence are material facts. All the facts which are essential to clothe the petition with complete cause of action must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact would amount to disobedience of the mandate of Section 83(1)(a). The test propounded is "whether the Court could have given a direct verdict in favour of the election petitioner in case the returned candidate had not appeared to oppose the election petition on the basis of the facts pleaded in the petition."
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

P.Chidambaram vs R.S.Raja Kannappan on 7 June, 2012

21. Yet another decision relied on by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant is reported in 1986 (supp) Supreme Court Cases 315, Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi. That is the case where the Election Petition was filed challenging the election of Late Rajiv Gandhi to the Lok Sabha from the Amethi Constituency of Uttar Pradesh. An elector from the said constituency filed the Election Petition. The returned candidate filed an application to reject the Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 and Order VI Rule 16 CPC. It was allowed by the High Court of Allahabad and confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In that case, it was pleaded
Madras High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sanjay Gurjar vs Shri Dushyant Singh And Ors. on 10 March, 2008

21. There is a glaring omission to mention the names of the workers said to have been employed by the respondent or his agents who have allegedly painted the slogans. So also no material particulars are given as regards the vehicles on which the saids slogans have been said to have been painted. There are no material particulars or facts. We are of the view that inasmuch as the material facts and particulars in regard to this alleged practice were not mentioned the High Court was justified in taking the view that it has taken. The averments contained in regard to this charge also do not satisfy the test laid down by the various decisions of this Court adverted herein above.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - K S Rathore - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next