Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.36 seconds)
Ramesh Chand .....Non vs Mahender Singh ... on 25 April, 2019 cites

M. Karunanidhi Etc vs H.V. Hande & Ors. Etc on 31 March, 1983

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 90 - A P Sen - Full Document

Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Baidyanath Yadav And Ors on 2 January, 1984

(a), (c) and 83(2) of the Act. The Hon'ble Three-Judges Bench following the decisions of the Constitution Bench in case of Muraka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar and Ch. Subbrao's case (supra) and also considering various other judgments, observed in paragraph 81 thereof that the decisions in case of Satya Narain vs. Dhuja Ram reported in 1974 (4) SCC 237 and in case of Rajendra Singh vs. Usha Rani reported in 1984 (3) SCC 339 do not lay down good law and allowing the appeal the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that burden to prove that the election petition was not maintainable or the same should be dismissed ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 22:14:19 :::HCHP 29 on the threshold lay on the respondents (applicant therein) and that the act of the officers of the High Court would draw a .
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 44 - S M Ali - Full Document

Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vs Rajiv Gandhi on 11 May, 1987

13. It is further argued that an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has to be disposed of at the threshold as held by the Ho'ble supreme Court in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vs. Shri Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1987 SC 1577 . It is further argued that Schedule and annexure appended with the petition have not been verified and have only been attested and, therefore, also the petition is liable to be rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 195 - K N Singh - Full Document

A. Madan Mohan vs Kalavakunta Chandrasekhara on 14 February, 1984

In taking this view, I am fortified by the judgment of three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Madan Mohan vs. K. Chandrasekhara, AIR 1984 SC 871, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while affirming the decision of the High Court held that there was no requirement that the documents or the schedules should also have been served on the petitioner because if they were filed in the Court, it was always open to the petitioner to inspect them and find out the allegations made in the petition. Opining that the documents or the schedules were in no sense an integral part of the petition, being merely ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 22:14:19 :::HCHP 13 evidence in the case, the Court held that copies of such annexures were not required to be served on the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 15 - S M Ali - Full Document

Manohar Joshi vs Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr on 11 December, 1995

" While the failure to comply with the requirements of Section 81 obligates the High Court to dismiss the election petition, the failure to comply with the requirements of Section 83 is not expressly declared to be fatal to the election petition. The said distinction is explained by this Court in Manohar Joshi vs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and another, 1996 (1) SCC 169 paras 20 and 21T."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 96 - J S Verma - Full Document
1   2 3 Next