Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)M. Chinnasamy vs K.C. Palanisamy & Ors on 21 November, 2003
In Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors. , relying on an earlier decision in M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy and Ors. , a bench of three Judges (to which one of us S.B. Sinha, J. was a party) held that an election petition seeking a recount must contain a concise statement of material facts and clear evidence in support of the facts pleaded. It was held that a small margin of victory by itself was not a ground for ordering recount. A roving and fishing inquiry was not permissible while directing recount of votes. The requirement of maintaining secrecy of ballot papers had also to be kept in mind before directing a recount.
Tanaji Ramchandra Nimhan vs Swati Vinayak Nimhan & Ors on 31 January, 2006
In Tanaji Ramchandra Nimhan (supra) it was held inpara-9:
Gujarat State Financial Corporation vs Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. on 3 May, 1983
He has also relied upon Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels Private Ltd. on promissory estoppel.
Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. & ... vs Ladha Ram & Co on 23 September, 1976
He has also cited Judgment in case of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. and Anr. v. Ladha Ram & Co. AIR 1978 Alld. 260 in which it was held that the power to frame additional issue is a discretionary power. If the court thinks necessary for determining the matter in controversy, it may frame additional issue, which is a matter only of procedure. The framing of such issue does not decide right of any parties and thus it has to be treated as interlocutory order against which a revision under Section 115 is not maintainable.
Raghbir Singh Gill vs Gurcharan Singh Tohra & Ors on 9 May, 1980
In S. Raghubir Singh Gill v. S. Gurucharan Singh Tohra 1980 Supp. SCC 53 it was held as under.
Mahendra Pal vs Ram Dass Malanger And Ors on 27 October, 1999
9. This Court after referring to a number of prior decisions, has held in Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Malanger and Ors. , that an order for recounting cannot be made as a matter of course. Unless the election petition had laid the foundation and there was clinching evidence to support the case set up by the election petitioner, a recount normally could not be ordered.
Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 April, 2004
In Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors. , relying on an earlier decision in M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy and Ors. , a bench of three Judges (to which one of us S.B. Sinha, J. was a party) held that an election petition seeking a recount must contain a concise statement of material facts and clear evidence in support of the facts pleaded. It was held that a small margin of victory by itself was not a ground for ordering recount. A roving and fishing inquiry was not permissible while directing recount of votes. The requirement of maintaining secrecy of ballot papers had also to be kept in mind before directing a recount.
Bhabhi vs Sheo Govind & Ors on 21 April, 1975
17. The substance of all these decisions is set out in Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind as follows:
Sabir S/O Jamaluddin vs Additional District Judge, Court No. 4 ... on 24 January, 2003
16. Shri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari has relied upon judgements in Smt. Hazzee v. Prescribed Authority and Ors. 2003 (94) RD 108; Sabir v. Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar and Ors. 2003 (50) ALR 642; M. Chinnasami v. K.C. Palanisamv and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 541; Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge Ghazipur and Ors. 1985 ALJ 615 (Full Bench); Hamraj v. Sub Divisional Officer 1992 RD 460; Dhanai Prasad v. Sub Divisional Magistrate Chunar, District Mirzapur 1974 ALJ 371; Tanaii Ramchandra Nimhan v. Swati Vinavak Nimhan ; Smt. Susma Devi v. State of UP and Ors. 2008 (104) RD 57 and Raifaqat Hussain v. Rama Shanker Kaushik 1986 ALJ 1446 and Anwar Ali v. Prescribed Authority 2002 (2) AWC 954.